Panthers' trade deadline moves - real reason?

[jol]

Could it be true that Panthers are going to get more revenue sharing, thanks to shredding salaries which leads into team being less competitive.
Is this some kind of loop hole or does revenue sharing work like this or this is just great misunderstanding in my behalf?

http://www.litterboxcats.com/2011/3...ats-now-qualify-for-increased-revenue-sharing

JOL

Click to read more...

 

[danishh]

http://www.litterboxcats.com/2011/3...ats-now-qualify-for-increased-revenue-sharing

 

[kdb209]

Could it be true that Panthers are going to get more revenue sharing, thanks to shredding salaries which leads into team being less competitive.
Is this some kind of loop hole or does revenue sharing work like this or this is just great misunderstanding in my behalf?

http://www.litterboxcats.com/2011/3/...evenue-sharing

JOL

The link is broken - but I assume the blog is refering to the second round of Revenue Sharing - as part of the Final Escrow Disbursements.

Assuming that there are excess escrow funds remaining after revenue sharing, teams with an Actual Club Salary less than the Cap Mid-Point receive funds for the difference between their payroll and the midpoint - with some caveats. The effect is that if a team cuts their total payroll (actually spent) to below the midpoint, then they receive up to $2 in benefit for each $1 below the midpoint they are - $1 in direct savings on salary and another $1 in an increased share in the escrow distribution.

49.7 Final Escrow Disbursements. Once the League has satisfied its commitment to
bring all eligible Clubs up to the Targeted Team Player Compensation (which amount, as
set forth above, shall be determined based upon the League's "need-based distribution
formula" in each League Year), then any further remaining Escrow Account funds owed
to the League (as the result of there being an Overage in the League Year), to the extent
there are such remaining funds, shall be distributed as follows:

(a) First, as set forth in Section 50.11(d)(i)(B) of this Agreement, any
remaining Escrow Account funds shall be distributed to any Club that had an Actual Club
Salary that was less than the Midpoint of the Payroll Range (measured as of the final day
of the NHL Regular Season), with the amount of funds each such Club receives being
sufficient to bring it up to the Midpoint of the Payroll Range, provided, however, that no
Club will receive a distribution pursuant to this subsection that would cause the Club's
Club Gross Preseason and Regular Season Revenues, including moneys received from
the Player Compensation Cost Redistribution System, when multiplied by the Applicable
Percentage of HRR, to exceed the Midpoint of the Payroll Range; and

(b) Next, as set forth in Section 50.11(d)(i)(C) of this Agreement, any
remaining Escrow Account funds to which the Clubs are entitled shall be divided equally
among all NHL Clubs (including those Clubs that received a distribution under
subsection (a) above).​

 

[y2kcanucks]

Ugh.

In my books the whole Revenue Sharing system the league has is ridiculous. IMO, to be eligible for revenue sharing you should be operating at at least 90-95% capacity in terms of paid attendance. I find it appauling that the rich teams are having to support the poor teams because their fan base is incredibly weak. Either you're losing money due to economic circumstances that prohibit you from turning a reasonable profit and you legitimately do need assistance, or you're losing money because your fans aren't showing up to the games. The former should receive assistance, the ladder shouldn't.

 

[Jeffrey93]

The link is broken - but I assume the blog is refering to the second round of Revenue Sharing - as part of the Final Escrow Disbursements.

Assuming that there are excess escrow funds remaining after revenue sharing, teams with an Actual Club Salary less than the Cap Mid-Point receive funds for the difference between their payroll and the midpoint - with some caveats. The effect is that if a team cuts their total payroll (actually spent) to below the midpoint, then they receive up to $2 in benefit for each $1 below the midpoint they are - $1 in direct savings on salary and another $1 in an increased share in the escrow distribution.

This seems anti-productive to me. It is rewarding teams for selling off players...which signals 'giving up' to the fans...which then reduces revenue (at least makes it likely). To me, it kind of gives a short-term fix to get additional monies through revenue sharing that will likely hurt the club's ability to generate more revenue in the longer term (ticking off fans).

Haven't studied this for any great length of time or anything...but that was my initial thought.

 

[Dado]

Not sure I'm following, kdb. Is the bottom line of your analysis that teams CAN increase revenue sharing by shedding salary?

(Obviously they still need to be above cap floor etc (at least I think they do))

 

[Lateralous]

I think you guys are reading too much into this. IMO, Tallon has fully committed to building through the draft and since they've played pretty well this season given the roster on paper, this is his way of making sure they tank at the end to get the highest pick possible. This team is in desperate need of another top 3 pick and the PR that goes with it.

 

[Dado]

It's also a team that's haemorrhaging money. At a minimum, it should't be dismissed out of hand as a possibility.

 

[Jeffrey93]

I think you guys are reading too much into this. IMO, Tallon has fully committed to building through the draft and since they've played pretty well this season given the roster on paper, this is his way of making sure they tank at the end to get the highest pick possible. This team is in desperate need of another top 3 pick and the PR that goes with it.

They shouldn't be rewarded financially for taking that approach.

 

[Steve Passless*]

IMO, Tallon has fully committed to building through the draft

And in my opinion, Tallon has fully committed to golfing at some pretty nice country clubs in February. He just runs the Florida Panthers when he has some downtime.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I might be off-base here, but with only 6 weeks left in the year aren't we talking about a very small amount of salary? Not the cap hits, but the actual dollars owed to these players (and also bearing in mind that they took on some salary as well).

 

[jessebelanger]

I might be off-base here, but with only 6 weeks left in the year aren't we talking about a very small amount of salary? Not the cap hits, but the actual dollars owed to these players (and also bearing in mind that they took on some salary as well).

Very rough but I believe the team saved itself about ~3.1 million in Salary. So, a somewhat significant amount.

edit: Subtract from that 3.1 the cost of calling guys up from the AHL that are on 2 way contracts to fill spots (probably a few hundred thousand)

 

[seanlinden]

Ugh.

In my books the whole Revenue Sharing system the league has is ridiculous. IMO, to be eligible for revenue sharing you should be operating at at least 90-95% capacity in terms of paid attendance. I find it appauling that the rich teams are having to support the poor teams because their fan base is incredibly weak. Either you're losing money due to economic circumstances that prohibit you from turning a reasonable profit and you legitimately do need assistance, or you're losing money because your fans aren't showing up to the games. The former should receive assistance, the ladder shouldn't.

With all due respect... this is one of the more ubsurd reasonings I've read on these boards.

Florida could problably fill the house for Panther games, they'd just have to make tickets usburdly cheap. A weak fan base is an economic circumstance in that specific city -- also known as weaker demand.

 

[Dado]

Florida could problably fill the house for Panther games, they'd just have to make tickets usburdly cheap.

Not sure that's a supportable statement. There is zero incremental cost to watching the games on TV, and they draw even less TV viewership than in-game viewership.

Seems to me the tickets could go all the way to zero and they could conceivably STILL fail to fill the building.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Seems to me the tickets could go all the way to zero and they could conceivably STILL fail to fill the building.

Because price is not the issue, entertainment value is the issue. Both factor into the appeal of the ticket.

Similarly, you could reduce the price of tickets to "Hall Pass" down to zero and still fail to fill the theater. That doesn't mean anything about the viability of movie theaters in that area, it simply means that the theater better start showing something OTHER than "Hall Pass" if it wants to survive very long.

 

[seanlinden]

Not sure that's a supportable statement. There is zero incremental cost to watching the games on TV, and they draw even less TV viewership than in-game viewership.

Seems to me the tickets could go all the way to zero and they could conceivably STILL fail to fill the building.

You're telling me that they couldn't find 20,000 people to purchase season tickets if the cost to purchase said tickets was $200 for the season?

 

[Dado]

You're telling me that they couldn't find 20,000 people to purchase season tickets if the cost to purchase said tickets was $200 for the season?

I didn't say anything about selling tickets, I was referring to playing in a full building.

And yeah - I believe it is very possible tickets could go to free and the building wouldn't fill.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I didn't say anything about selling tickets, I was referring to playing in a full building.

And yeah - I believe it is very possible tickets could go to free and the building wouldn't fill.

There's good reason to believe that they would move fewer tickets if they were free than if they charged $200 for them.

Any way you look at it, this is all pointless speculation.

 

[seanlinden]

I didn't say anything about selling tickets, I was referring to playing in a full building.

And yeah - I believe it is very possible tickets could go to free and the building wouldn't fill.

And I didn't say anything about playing infront of warm bodies. When I say "fill the house", I refer to attendance, which is measured by tickets sold, not warm bodies.

 

[Dado]

You're welcome to any definition you like. It was my comment, so I'll be using mine.

Cheers.

 

[kmad]

With all due respect... this is one of the more ubsurd reasonings I've read on these boards.

Aw come on seanlinden! Let him play analyst! He ain't hurtin nobody!

 

[y2kcanucks]

With all due respect... this is one of the more ubsurd reasonings I've read on these boards.

Florida could problably fill the house for Panther games, they'd just have to make tickets usburdly cheap. A weak fan base is an economic circumstance in that specific city -- also known as weaker demand.

Then why does that team have a city? Why should the rest of the league support a team in a city that doesn't support that team itself? Otherwise, why wouldn't the league just plop up teams in small rural areas that have beautiful scenery? Sure it won't be supported by the locals, but the rest of the league can support it and the players who play there can enjoy living in a beautiful town.

Coming up next, the New York Rangers play on the road against the Martha's Vineyard Winers.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Then why does that team have a city?

You're right, that city really should be relocated to a team that appreciates it.

 

[y2kcanucks]

You're right, that city really should be relocated to a team that appreciates it.

That's what happens when I'm trying to multitask work with HFboards.

 

[Steve Passless*]

Why should the rest of the league support a team in a city that doesn't support that team itself? Otherwise, why wouldn't the league just plop up teams in small rural areas that have beautiful scenery? Sure it won't be supported by the locals, but the rest of the league can support it and the players who play there can enjoy living in a beautiful town.

But that is what the NHL does with the Panthers.