List All the Possible Revenue that we all know of.

Status
Not open for further replies.

CarlRacki

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
1,442
2
Wetcoaster said:
Here is the defintion from the NBA:


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#12

In the NFL it is called DGR (Defined Gross Revenues)


http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete#art24

No problem the NHL and NHLPA should be able to hammer this puppy out in what? - a couple of hours - once the NHL owners disclose all the books for the teams and related entitites and all sources of potential revenues so it can be examined and determined if it should be included as HRI (Hockey Related Income).

Are you being facetious? ;)

Seriously, though, it wouldn't be as hard as you suggest. The NHL has two clear and successful models to follow and would simply need to pick which works out best for them.

As for opening the books, that can be done after the two sides agree on what revenue is to be shared. No sense, for example, in making Bill Wirtz disclose how much he receives from stadium naming rights if that's not to be included in the shared revenue.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
Smail said:
You see the problem is that if you include that parking revenue, Tom Hicks just has to sell it to someone else for a now profit and then the revenue won't be included anymore.

What you don't want to do with the "profit sharing" is make it so that the owners would rather sell the extras for now profit to cut down on shared revenues. It just doesn't make sense. If you penalize someone because he's also the owner of this and that, he'll just sell it right now for a profit that will go all to his pockets and reduce future revenues. You have to be careful with this.

Another example is the rink revenues. If there is no point for the owner to possess an arena, then they will just lease it and leave it to someone else and the revenue won't be counted then. That's why I said to allow revenues you need to verify what the advantages would be if it was independantly owned. Good accounting firms will be able to do that and to justify their choices based on general accounting/fiscal principles.


I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
Russian Fan said:
I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.

Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.
 

Russian Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2003
2,475
0
Visit site
eye said:
Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.

Well it depends on many factor.

Bill Wirtz divide his hockey empire into 24 businesses. How can you defined revenue when you make it so complicated that it's impossible to trace it ?
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
eye said:
Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.

Not really true. Some team owners also own the arena and the parking lots.

But whether it is only 10-20% of parking and concessions they get or 100% its still revenue and should be counted as such. Its the same as you not declaring interest income on your taxes. Doesn't matter where it comes from or the amount, its still income and therefore must be declared no matter the amount.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
CarlRacki said:
Are you being facetious? ;)

Seriously, though, it wouldn't be as hard as you suggest. The NHL has two clear and successful models to follow and would simply need to pick which works out best for them.

As for opening the books, that can be done after the two sides agree on what revenue is to be shared. No sense, for example, in making Bill Wirtz disclose how much he receives from stadium naming rights if that's not to be included in the shared revenue.
The point is the owners disclose everything then you negotiate the definition as occurred in the NBA and NFL. You do not negotiate blind and certainly not with Dollar Bill Wirtz.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
Upshaw was recently saying that the defined revenues were falling from 70% to 63% of all revenues. So really they only get 65% of 63% of the overall revenues.
 

SuperUnknown

Registered User
Mar 14, 2002
4,890
0
Visit site
Russian Fan said:
I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.

First of all, the owners have stated they will do a joint audit to determine revenue sources, which means the auditor should tell what revenues are.

Defining hockey related revenues is the kind of job that's best done by accountants.

You can only include revenues that have a strong relation with hockey. For example, if there's a parking at the location of the arena that is not used for anything else, then obviously the main purpose of the parking is to be used for arena events. In that case, the normal share of revenues related to that parking should count in the hockey revenues. What is the "normal share"? That's something that you have to find out on the field. See what kind of money the big events (leading events) of a building usually receive from the parking revenues. That share is the normal share that hockey players should be entitled a part to. On the other hand, if there's a parking a few blocks away from the arena, that is going to be used whether there is hockey or not (so main purpose of the parking not necessarily hockey), then the revenues should not be counted as hockey revenues, whoever the owner of the parking is.

You can go about pretty much all revenues like this and find out what's the part that the players should be entitled to.
 

quat

Faking Life
Apr 4, 2003
14,966
2,059
Duncan
DR said:
whats your question ?

dr



"establish a salary range that is independant of revenues"

Well, if one considers the 24% roll back being accepted by the league... we can see this as a salary range "dependant of revenues", in that both sides see this as what the league can bear as far as salaries are concerned.

My question is how can anyone come up with a salary independant of revenues, without completely destroying the present range of earnings. What criteria to you suggest they base it on? How important they are to society? Not very. How valuable they are to peoples lives? Not really. They play a game after all...

Simply put, it's crazy to ignore the financial reality of a business when deciding salaries... praticularily in sports. If not, then the players would get totally hosed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->