Kypreos: Almost all revenue talk in yesterday's meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.

HF2002

Registered User
Aug 20, 2003
2,924
80
Ottawa
Visit site
gc2005 said:
They didn't hold off on the lockout, they locked the doors as soon as they possibly could, at the very second the CBA expired. Since they knowingly extended the CBA til 2004, there couldn't possibly be a lockout before 2004. And the only reason they extended the deal was to milk millions out of Minnesota, Columbus et al.

And they're not shutting the doors until they get a deal that gives teams a legitimate chance to break even, if that was the case they'd be open by now. They shut down the game to get a deal that gives each team an ironclad guarantee of huge profits for all, despite their own incompetence and ineptitude.
Yeah, I didn't write that properly.

I meant that they held off as long as they did because they didn't have a choice. They wanted to renegotiate but the PA said no thanks. Are you saying they could have done this years ago and saved themselves X billion dollars but chose not to?
 

on the boards

Registered User
Feb 28, 2005
133
0
and we wonder why it took so long for the NHL and the NHLPA to belly up to the table again and again-- hell, we can't even discuss revenue sharing without deciding which side is at fault in all of this... FWIW, both sides are headed by strong willed, obstinant, intelligent, businessmen ( who may not be the most savvy)...both are representing their masters' interests...but yea, I say let's devote yet ANOTHER thread to finger pointing-- we haven't seen that around here for a long time.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
Top Shelf said:
Doug MacLean was just on here localy in Columbus (they had John Davidson on as well). Jeff Rimer asked him if revenue sharing was the big hangup in negotiations and Doug said that revenue sharing is now a non-issue. He didn't expand any further on that unfortunately.

So either 1.) the revenue sharing issue has been addressed or 2.) it was never much of an issue to being with.

My money is on 1.) - especially given Bettman's trip to TO last week.

If you read section 4(?) of the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal (it's only 2-3 pages for the gist) on revenue sharing, Goodenow refers to a previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing method, a previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing formula and even previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing dollar amounts and basically incorporates all of those into his NHLPA proposal. So they've been on the same page with revenue sharing for some time in spite of the rhetoric in the media.

The key to it is where the cap falls an the revenue sharing/tax amounts. The higher the cap, the less revenue sharing/payroll tax is affordable to the NHL. The lower the cap, the more revenue sharing/payroll tax is affordable to the NHL "in theory". Which ever you use, the sum of the payrolls has to arrive at roughly around 55% of league revenues for the league to stay financially healthy according to most (but not according to the PA).

In practice, in the latter case, enough NHL teams have to be willing to go along with it.
 

CGG

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
4,136
55
416
cleduc said:
If you read section 4(?) of the Dec 9th NHLPA proposal (it's only 2-3 pages for the gist) on revenue sharing, Goodenow refers to a previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing method, a previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing formula and even previously proposed Bettman revenue sharing dollar amounts and basically incorporates all of those into his NHLPA proposal. So they've been on the same page with revenue sharing for some time in spite of the rhetoric in the media.

The key to it is where the cap falls an the revenue sharing/tax amounts. The higher the cap, the less revenue sharing/payroll tax is affordable to the NHL. The lower the cap, the more revenue sharing/payroll tax is affordable to the NHL "in theory". Which ever you use, the sum of the payrolls has to arrive at roughly around 55% of league revenues for the league to stay financially healthy according to most (but not according to the PA).

In practice, in the latter case, enough NHL teams have to be willing to go along with it.

The Dec 9th proposal openly states that the NHL is reluctant to share revenue, therefore the PA is trying to work with lower dollar values that the players want. There were actually three different revenue sharing plans mentioned in that proposal, with the indication that the owners wouldn't like #2 or #3 because the amounts were too high.

If they were in fact on the same page in terms of revenue sharing, Gary wouldn't have shot down that proposal in his famous "accidentally" leaked memo stating the league shouldn't share anything, except national TV deals and playoff money, i.e. take from Calgary to give to the Rangers.

It's a different world now. That proposal had no salary floor, and effectively, no real ceiling. Therefore Toronto could still spend a lot if they wanted, and Nashville could still spend very little. Now we're looking at a range, with both a floor and a cap. If the PA is to accept a lower cap, you need to raise the floor. Raising the floor requires that the league share more revenue so that poor teams like Nashville have the ability to spend up to the floor while Toronto is chopped off of spending at the ceiling. Owners don't want to share, they want to watch their millions pile up.

The 55% is still a random number. Owners could survive on 45% of $2.1 billion quite easily. They'd struggle with 45% of $1 billion, and get drunk on wealth with 45% of $3 or $4 billion.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
gc2005 said:
The Dec 9th proposal openly states that the NHL is reluctant to share revenue, therefore the PA is trying to work with lower dollar values that the players want. There were actually three different revenue sharing plans mentioned in that proposal, with the indication that the owners wouldn't like #2 or #3 because the amounts were too high.

If the NHLPA proposed (and by proposing, the NHL can accept and bind them to it) three caps:

1) $50 mil
2) $40 mil
3) $30 mil

which cap do you think the league would take ?

Goodenow proposed three revenue sharing dollar levels with the lower revenue sharing naturally more appealing to some teams in the league (the ones who would have to shell out the dough). The teams who would receive the dough probably don't mind the higher levels so much.

So under that isolated section, the two parties are not light years apart in formula, mechanism, or with a group of owners and certain conditions - dollar amounts. That's pretty darn good common ground and consensus in principle on that issue when one isolates on it. The key, as mentioned earlier in the thread and media, is dollar amounts. But even there, they're getting roughly close when Goodenow's proposal overlaps Bettman's numbers.

gc2005 said:
If they were in fact on the same page in terms of revenue sharing, Gary wouldn't have shot down that proposal in his famous "accidentally" leaked memo stating the league shouldn't share anything, except national TV deals and playoff money, i.e. take from Calgary to give to the Rangers.

The Goodenow proposal came from 30 concepts provided by the NHL to the NHLPA on how the NHL would be prepared to deal with the revenue sharing issue. Goodenow picked one pf them and worked it into his proposal.

Obviously, the supposed "leaked memo" wasn't one of them.

Again, the key point on this issue is that they have some substantial agreement in principle on how to handle it. they now need to haggle the dollars which are at least roughly in the same ball park of acceptance or Goodenow would not have offered close to Bettman's numbers as option #1.

gc2005 said:
It's a different world now. That proposal had no salary floor, and effectively, no real ceiling. Therefore Toronto could still spend a lot if they wanted, and Nashville could still spend very little.

Agreed. But it wasn't the revenue sharing that killed that deal though Bettman did some modification to it in his counter proposal. In fact, if the NHLPA had negotiated acceptable triggers, that Dec 9th deal would largely be in place right now.

gc2005 said:
Now we're looking at a range, with both a floor and a cap. If the PA is to accept a lower cap, you need to raise the floor. Raising the floor requires that the league share more revenue so that poor teams like Nashville have the ability to spend up to the floor while Toronto is chopped off of spending at the ceiling. Owners don't want to share, they want to watch their millions pile up.

I agree with increasing revenue sharing if you raise the floor.

However, only some owners don't want to revenue share. Other owners would love to spent Toronto's money. That's part of the issue among the owners.

If every other facet of a deal proposed to the owners appealed to the owners, you know that it is very likely that the 10 bottom feeder owners will vote for as much revenue sharing as they can get their mitts on. There will also be a bunch in the middle who are not likely to be deeply affected over the next 6 years or the life of the deal. So it's really the top 10 revenue owners who will be clinging desperately to their pile of money as the rest of the owners and NHLPA try to tear it away from them - which excepting the NHLPA, they can do in a vote.

gc2005 said:
The 55% is still a random number. Owners could survive on 45% of $2.1 billion quite easily. They'd struggle with 45% of $1 billion, and get drunk on wealth with 45% of $3 or $4 billion.

As I stated: "roughly around 55%". There are fixed overheads, etc. so it isn't an absolutely linear relationship but you could cover that off with a profit sharing formula.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
jaws said:
I'm not saying the players are paying the price for the NHL going into cities it shouldn't have, I'm just pointing out that the players aren't the ones who decided to expand into those cities. If the league wants to expand to 100 cities, sure, its great for hockey players' finanical perspective, as more and more will make more money. But the wild expansion spree in the 90s was not a player decision, but an owner one. What's one of the major problems in the NHL? Over expansion or expanding when the league wasn't ready to do so. Who did that? The owners.

My comments were directed at someone who was blaming the players for everything, and that is simply not the case. Expansion, high salaries, rule changes, expanding the CBA twice, marketing, the lockout, ticket prices, this is all the owners doing. Have a good night.

Sorry, the NHLPA had to approve expansion and they did and a lot of rule changes require their approval also. Please don't tell me that you think that the NHLPA and agents had no role in escalating salaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->