Tom_Benjamin said:
That's last year, isn't it? We don't really know what it means that Calgary would qualify for $4.7 million in welfare. Tampa also qualified for $1 million. It may be that the revenue sharing formula only applies to regular season revenues.
That's what the offer says-at the very least it says the information in the proposal is based on regular season revenues. That explains the seeming disparity in my mind.
The players were pretty careful in this regard, usually qualifying them as reported revenues. These numbers are taken directly from the UROs. I wasn't really doubting these numbers but the fiscal year end is a really important date. Most teams set it up so a playoff run is spread over two years. I don't know how the NHL does it for the URO.
As I said above, the NHLPA says the numbers are based on 2003/04 regular season. The fiscal year end might be the important date for tax purposes, but I don't see how you can say it's the important date for the URO. At the very least, this offer gives us a snapshot at who ranks where in terms of revenues for the 2003/04 season. In addition, it tells us that the Leafs blew everyone away.
I can't really comment without knowing the formula or actually seeing the revenues. Chicago, for one, doesn't get any revenue sharing because of their market size. About the only thing I would say for sure is that Edmonton is in the top 15 revenue generating teams right now.
They discuss the formular for contributions in the proposal, although not the formula for receiving funds. Reference is made to the fact that the proposal will bring the average of the upper teams to just 30% more than the average of the lower teams under the NHLPA proposal, which at least gives us an idea of what we're dealing with. I'd agree the Oilers are a top 15 revenue generating team. Their proposal makes no reference to not handing out revenue sharing dollars to large markets, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
But in general, I would say that the results here confirm my views rather than contradict them. Edmonton as an NHL market is vastly underestimated. The more they make with a mediocre team, the more they can make with a really good one.
I have a harder time with this proposition. I've bought into your argument that with a good team, you'll make a lot more money-it's intuitive, and makes a lot of sense. I have a harder time with the idea that if the Hawks suddenly get good they've got way more potential to grow their revenue base with the Oilers. At some point, there's a cap on what the Oilers can make in that market. It's hard to speculate, but looking at the teams above them-and there are some good teams in good markets, I have a hard time seeing a winning Oilers team generating much more revenue than Vancouver.
If we take Nichols at his word, Oiler revenues are about $68 million US at current exchange rates. Add $15 a ticket to bring the price up to the NHL average and you add $12 million in revenue assuming you don't lose attendance. Add six to 10 playoff games a year and you've got another $10 million. How can revenues not go up significantly with a winner?
The playoff revenue, I think is absurd to budget on-ask Burke if he thinks it's a good idea after this season. Even the ticket revenue from the regular season-$12 million is nice, but it gets eaten up pretty quickly.
Even if they don't win, the Oilers are an excellent business right where they are. Particularly after payroll is cut by 24%. How many Edmonton fans would have believed last week that their team would not qualify under any revenue sharing plan? If these numbers halfway reflect where the Edmonton Oilers are as a business, what does it say about the story the fans have been fed?
No argument from me on your last point. I wonder when the media in Edmonton will pick up on this? It's pretty significant, especially when you consider that Forbes had them 26 in teh league in revenue.
