Lock the door - throw away the key - let's start the NHL II with new players!

[nyr7andcounting]

You cant financially compare the NHL and the NFL

Those who do are simply pro-owners who look for any reason to support Bettman's cause. They see the NFL, with a hard cap, and say 'look how succesful thats been, eventhough they konw nothing about the NFL and the situation under which their cap works.

I don't even have enough time to go into depth about how the NHL differs, but really I could go through almost every aspect of the NFL's cap and CBA and explain how it wouldn't work in hockey.

Please Stop It!

 

[misterjaggers]

You cant financially compare the NHL and the NFL...

Why? Because the NHL doesn't have a huge national TV contract to divvy up? That just means there's less money to share.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Why? Because the NHL doesn't have a huge national TV contract to divvy up? That just means there's less money to share.

But there is 30 different local TV/Cable and Radio deals that can be pooled up along with ticket sales. Now i dont know how much money it would create since it's almost impossible to find out what teams get for thier TV and Radio deals. But it isn't chump change. The thing is, the NFL cap works because the owners share almost everything. Not just a the TV deal.

 

[MarkZackKarl]

Just incase anyone still doesnt understand, the NFL makes huge amounts and all franchises are profitable because of the revenue sharing, not the salary cap. If only people were smart enough to realize this. Thus, the NHL cartel wishing for a cap and no revenue sharing is nothing like the NFL system.

Even then, it hasnt prevented teams (LA, Houston, Cleveland) from relocating.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Just incase anyone still doesnt understand, the NFL makes huge amounts and all franchises are profitable because of the revenue sharing, not the salary cap. If only people were smart enough to realize this. Thus, the NHL cartel wishing for a cap and no revenue sharing is nothing like the NFL system.

Even then, it hasnt prevented teams (LA, Houston, Cleveland) from relocating.

Well those 3 moved because they backed themselves into a corner. Give us a new stadium or we'll move. Cleveland and Houston did come up with new buildings for new teams, LA hasn't yet.

 

[hockeytown9321]

But there is 30 different local TV/Cable and Radio deals that can be pooled up along with ticket sales. Now i dont know how much money it would create since it's almost impossible to find out what teams get for thier TV and Radio deals. But it isn't chump change. The thing is, the NFL cap works because the owners share almost everything. Not just a the TV deal.

If the NHL divided its revenues 30 ways last year, each team would have taken in about $70 million. If a team can't make a profit, and be competitive on $70 million, thats their problem.

 

[Wetcoaster]

The source has already been posted at least 5 times. Go look it up yourself.

So there is no source?

 

[CarlRacki]

But there is 30 different local TV/Cable and Radio deals that can be pooled up along with ticket sales. Now i dont know how much money it would create since it's almost impossible to find out what teams get for thier TV and Radio deals. But it isn't chump change. The thing is, the NFL cap works because the owners share almost everything. Not just a the TV deal.

But they don't share almost everything. In fact, outside the TV deal they don't share much at all. They share 40 percent of the gate and none of the parking, concessions, skybox sales, PSL sales, stadium-naming rights and local radio contracts. This is why, despite the revnue sharing, some teams make $100 million or more in revenue every year than others.

 

[CarlRacki]

If the NHL divided its revenues 30 ways last year, each team would have taken in about $70 million. If a team can't make a profit, and be competitive on $70 million, thats their problem.

Huh? Last year, 10 teams' payroll alone was more than $50 million. That leaves those teams with $20 million to pay their coaches, pay scouts and staff, pay administrate workers, pay travel expenses and per diems, pay for equipment, pay for a practice facility, pay for their minor-league affiliate, sign prospects and dozens of other costs associated with running a professional sports league. A single road trip - with chartering planes, paying for meals, renting dozens of hotel rooms, renting buses, etc. - costs in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
If you can find a way to run a professional sprots team on $20 million a year, you're likely in the wrong business.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

But they don't share almost everything. In fact, outside the TV deal they don't share much at all. They share 40 percent of the gate and none of the parking, concessions, skybox sales, PSL sales, stadium-naming rights and local radio contracts. This is why, despite the revnue sharing, some teams make $100 million or more in revenue every year than others.

So? The players get theirs . . . . what is it, 60% or so of revenues? Why shouldn't the owner in New York for instance make more than the owner in Green Bay. I have no problem with that. The owners can split their share of the revenues as they see fit. I would think that the owners of the Rags, the owner in Detroit and the owner in Toronto will continue to make more than owners in edmonton for instance even if an NFL type system were instituted. That is not what this strike/lockout is about.

 

[eye]

Huh? Last year, 10 teams' payroll alone was more than $50 million. That leaves those teams with $20 million to pay their coaches, pay scouts and staff, pay administrate workers, pay travel expenses and per diems, pay for equipment, pay for a practice facility, pay for their minor-league affiliate, sign prospects and dozens of other costs associated with running a professional sports league. A single road trip - with chartering planes, paying for meals, renting dozens of hotel rooms, renting buses, etc. - costs in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
If you can find a way to run a professional sprots team on $20 million a year, you're likely in the wrong business.

70 million would have been enough to operate the Predators last year but is not nearly enough to run most organizations. There are dozens of costs associated to the running of a hockey team that many fans don't even think about. e.g. According to Mr. Peddie it cost the Toronto Maple Leafs 5 million a year in arena maintenance and another 1 million per year to operate their practice facility.

My original title on this thread may have sounded a bit overly dramatic but in all honesty I care less and less about most of these players as every day passes. I have no problem with owners looking after their business interests or making millions off their heavy investing. I blame Goodenow and player agents for getting players into this mess or for not agreeing to fix the problems before the season started or anytime in the last 5 years which Bettman and Daly have continually requested but it's time for the majority of players to speak out and not fear the opinions or backlash of their overpriced and financially secure player reps or Goodenow himself. I can tell you without providing names that I have personally spoken to 2 locked out players that I know and both would vote yes if given a chance to vote in confidence to working under a cap at 54% of agreed upon gross revenues but are reluctant to speak out for fear of being blackballed by other NHLPA members and the PA itself.

 

[hockeytown9321]

Huh? Last year, 10 teams' payroll alone was more than $50 million. That leaves those teams with $20 million to pay their coaches, pay scouts and staff, pay administrate workers, pay travel expenses and per diems, pay for equipment, pay for a practice facility, pay for their minor-league affiliate, sign prospects and dozens of other costs associated with running a professional sports league. A single road trip - with chartering planes, paying for meals, renting dozens of hotel rooms, renting buses, etc. - costs in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
If you can find a way to run a professional sprots team on $20 million a year, you're likely in the wrong business.

So how are teams able to survive when the salary cap mandates they spend more on players than they make?

 

[Motown Beatdown]

But they don't share almost everything. In fact, outside the TV deal they don't share much at all. They share 40 percent of the gate and none of the parking, concessions, skybox sales, PSL sales, stadium-naming rights and local radio contracts. This is why, despite the revnue sharing, some teams make $100 million or more in revenue every year than others.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...wN0bQ--?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

But hey dont let something like facts get in the way of a good arguement.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

Huh? Last year, 10 teams' payroll alone was more than $50 million. That leaves those teams with $20 million to pay their coaches, pay scouts and staff, pay administrate workers, pay travel expenses and per diems, pay for equipment, pay for a practice facility, pay for their minor-league affiliate, sign prospects and dozens of other costs associated with running a professional sports league. A single road trip - with chartering planes, paying for meals, renting dozens of hotel rooms, renting buses, etc. - costs in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.
If you can find a way to run a professional sprots team on $20 million a year, you're likely in the wrong business.

Dont you think if the teams like the Flyers or Leafs or Wings knew ahead of time they would have to give up 30 million dollars or so they would have lower their payrolls?

Take Detroit who lost around 16 million dollars last year with a payroll of 77 million dollars. Think of how much money Illitch would have lost if he had to give up another 30 million into revenue sharing. Do you think he would have been ok with losing 36 million dollars?

 

[Ghost of Dale Hunter]

I agree let's create a new league (or 2) now. I'm sure everyone will be happy to pay 150$ to see Pat Fallon's return

But Falloon did have great hair...................

 

[SENSible1*]

So there is no source?

The source has already been posted at least 5 times

 

[CarlRacki]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/news;_y...wN0bQ--?slug=daretocompare&prov=tsn&type=lgns

But hey dont let something like facts get in the way of a good arguement.

Which facts are you speaking of? Are you saying teams share skybox, concession, parking and naming-rights revenues? I don't see what in the link you provided contradicts what I said.

As for percentage shared, NFLPA Director Gene Upshaw places it as 63 percent (see link).
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7834035

As for percentage of gate that is shared, here's what Forbes said:

As for ticket revenue (called the "gate"), the home team gets just two-thirds of it; the remaining third goes into a pool shared by all the other teams.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/08/28/cz_bn_0828superbowl.html

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Why? Because the NHL doesn't have a huge national TV contract to divvy up? That just means there's less money to share.

Well it does have a lot to do with the TV deal. This season the amount that each team rakes in through TV is even with or even above the cap. Essentially, TV money pays for player salaries in the NFL. When that happens is is very easy to deal with the rest of it.

The other thing is in the NFL they share about 80% of revenues, the NHL owners refuse to do this.

There are a million ways that the NFL is different.

 

[CoolburnIsGone]

Which facts are you speaking of? Are you saying teams share skybox, concession, parking and naming-rights revenues? I don't see what in the link you provided contradicts what I said.

As for percentage shared, NFLPA Director Gene Upshaw places it as 63 percent (see link).
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/7834035

I don't question the amount that the NFLPA director states but the other article does state 80% of the gate revenue and other things. And I believe its shrunk to 63 percent...why has it shrunk? Oh yeah cause the owners are hiding revenues in any way they can. And the NHL wants the players to form a partnership...why would they trust the owners where some of them already do hide some of their revenues?? I don't blame the players for not wanting a percentage of revenues as their salary structure.

 

[CarlRacki]

I don't question the amount that the NFLPA director states but the other article does state 80% of the gate revenue and other things. And I believe its shrunk to 63 percent...why has it shrunk? Oh yeah cause the owners are hiding revenues in any way they can. And the NHL wants the players to form a partnership...why would they trust the owners where some of them already do hide some of their revenues?? I don't blame the players for not wanting a percentage of revenues as their salary structure.

The owners aren't hiding revenues. How do you hide a corporate logo on the side of your stadium? How do you hide a couple hundred luxury suites? How do you hide a local radio deal?
The owners have discovered new revenue streams, something every smart and successful corporation does. This is hardly groundbreaking stuff.
These particular revenue streams are not part of the negotiated CBA with the NFLPA nor is it part of the league's revenue-sharing plan. The players and owners agreed many years ago that these revenues would not be shared. The PA and some smaller-market teams now are trying to change that through negotiation of the next CBA, which is their right. There's nothing nefarious going on here. Look for your boogeyman elsewhere.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

The source has already been posted at least 5 times

Then post it for him. Is it really that hard if its been posted 5 times?

 

[PecaFan]

Well, there is some benefit to teaching someone to use the search function of HF.

Typing in ministry labor, gives us post 17 here:
http://www.hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=116380&page=1&pp=50&highlight=ministry+labor

 

[nyr7andcounting]

The owners aren't hiding revenues. How do you hide a corporate logo on the side of your stadium? How do you hide a couple hundred luxury suites? How do you hide a local radio deal?
The owners have discovered new revenue streams, something every smart and successful corporation does. This is hardly groundbreaking stuff.
These particular revenue streams are not part of the negotiated CBA with the NFLPA nor is it part of the league's revenue-sharing plan. The players and owners agreed many years ago that these revenues would not be shared. The PA and some smaller-market teams now are trying to change that through negotiation of the next CBA, which is their right. There's nothing nefarious going on here. Look for your boogeyman elsewhere.

You hide a corporate logo on the side of your stadium or a couple hundred luxury suites by putting that revenue on your stadium rather than your hockey team, when they are seperate entities of course. I am sure Cablevision's accountants can tell you all about it.

 

[CarlRacki]

You hide a corporate logo on the side of your stadium or a couple hundred luxury suites by putting that revenue on your stadium rather than your hockey team, when they are seperate entities of course. I am sure Cablevision's accountants can tell you all about it.

Let's go over this really slow for the reading challenged ...
1. The NFLPA and NFL owners negotiated a collective bargaining agreement under which certain revenues were designated to be "shared" and others were not.
2. Among those not shared were revenues generated by skyboxes, naming rights, and concessions.
3. There is no benefit for NFL owners to hide those revenues because nothing requires them to share those revenues. It would be like hiding non-taxable gift income from the IRS. There's nothing to gain from it except a costly accounting bill.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Ok great, I am talking about the NHL, not the NFL. NHL owners have ways to hide revenue, and I believe they do. I gave examples of how it can be done. Your situation with the NFL has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

I am talking about Cablevision hiding revenues in order to create a loss that will obviously help the NHL's cause. I am talking about hiding revenues for the sake of exaggerating something.

I don't know why, but you are talking about revenue in the NHL that's shared with other teams. Yes, they negotiated that in their CBA. Their books were made public and the PA and the NFL and the owners agreed what goes to the players, what goes into a revenue sharing process where the owners "split a pot", and what goes directly to the owner of a team himself. I definetly think the NHL should go through the same thing, so we know exactly how much the league lost and exactly how much each team lost, or didn't lose. This way the % going to the players, the $ going to the owners and the % going into a revenue sharing process is all fair and right.