Revenue disparities are still a major problem

[Fugu]

Here is my very simplistic take on this.
In the presence of a cap I think revenue sharing is clearly inflationary
so the players would be on side bigtime, (though linkage plays a complicated
role in this). However, unlike other inflationary forces, this one would likely be supported by many of the teams as a mechanism to potentially level the playing field with respect to the half dozen or so chronic big spenders since many teams would
see themselves as either potential recipients or at worst neutral parties. Therefore.
if you want to make nice why not do it with something that most owners would find
quite easy to swallow.

No, I don't think this is it. Buffalo'd digging up that old Goodenow comment fortunately reminded me of what the thinking as at that time. Goodenow recognized, correctly, that the revenue gap was the real concern. Any revamping of the NHL economic order (namely the cap) that didn't have significant revenue sharing simply meant the players take a pay cut. That's it. It was a huge pay cut too, because the initial cap level being floated was $31 MM. And, yes that did mean the big spenders would simply pocket a ton of money, all of which was coming from what was the players' share. The NHLPA wanted some assurance that the money being transferred indeed did have some chance of being used to help teams become more competitive. This explains why the salary floor was also built into the CBA. Linkage comes in to control the owners a bit, some of whom do like to overspend, as Bettman did correctly predict the cap could act as a magnet. I think what no one expected was for the cap to get quite this high, this quickly as the separation in ability to pay is being seen now.

Econ students get their X and Y axes backwards.

 

[Fourier]

I don't really see where we are in disagreement.

No, I don't think this is it. Buffalo'd digging up that old Goodenow comment fortunately reminded me of what the thinking as at that time. Goodenow recognized, correctly, that the revenue gap was the real concern. Any revamping of the NHL economic order (namely the cap) that didn't have significant revenue sharing simply meant the players take a pay cut. That's it. It was a huge pay cut too, because the initial cap level being floated was $31 MM. And, yes that did mean the big spenders would simply pocket a ton of money, all of which was coming from what was the players' share. The NHLPA wanted some assurance that the money being transferred indeed did have some chance of being used to help teams become more competitive.

This is exactly why, in the presence of the cap, revenue sharing is inflationary from
the players perspective. It means more of the otherwise pocketed money will
potentially go back to them. The remainder of my post was targeted at why the
owners would accept and inflationary clasue. My simplistic answer is that
in the majority they may have viewed this as a cost to only a few and a benefit to some. Therefore, if you have to give on something this may as well be it.

This explains why the salary floor was also built into the CBA. Linkage comes in to control the owners a bit, some of whom do like to overspend, as Bettman did correctly predict the cap could act as a magnet. I think what no one expected was for the cap to get quite this high, this quickly as the separation in ability to pay is being seen now.

Agreed.

Econ students get their X and Y axes backwards.

Seriously, don't get me started!!!!!!!!!

 

[bleed_oil]

Source?

FYI Carpenter


http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/1028

"Absolutely it can be done,'' said Cal Nichols, chairman of the board for the 34-person group which owns the Oilers. "It worked for us. The market size is very similar, and we went from being almost at the bottom of the league in revenue to seventh-best.
"It's going to take leadership and determination from a lot of people, but all good things are worth working for.''

I think that this would confirm that the Oilers are 7th in total revenue NOT gate revenue.

 

[Fugu]

FYI Carpenter


http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/1028

"Absolutely it can be done,'' said Cal Nichols, chairman of the board for the 34-person group which owns the Oilers. "It worked for us. The market size is very similar, and we went from being almost at the bottom of the league in revenue to seventh-best.
"It's going to take leadership and determination from a lot of people, but all good things are worth working for.''

I think that this would confirm that the Oilers are 7th in total revenue NOT gate revenue.

Tee hee. Can't wait to see GC's re-.... re--- ....rebuttal on this.

 

[bleed_oil]

Tee hee. Can't wait to see GC's re-.... re--- ....rebuttal on this.

Well there it is in black and white.... frankly I'm not surprised and I've made the point before.
If anything AFTER gate revnues Canadian teams should have even higher relative total revenues due to general public interest.
Something like local tv money for example should be far superior in a place like Edmonton where the tv audience is vastly (I mean 10X) larger than in most US markets... the same goes for advertising and corporate sponsership.

 

[GSC2k2*]

FYI Carpenter


http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070715/SPORTS02/707150399/1028

"Absolutely it can be done,'' said Cal Nichols, chairman of the board for the 34-person group which owns the Oilers. "It worked for us. The market size is very similar, and we went from being almost at the bottom of the league in revenue to seventh-best.
"It's going to take leadership and determination from a lot of people, but all good things are worth working for.''

I think that this would confirm that the Oilers are 7th in total revenue NOT gate revenue.

Noted.

Sorry to disappoint you, Fugs!

{Hope Nichols got quoted accurately!}

 

[GSC2k2*]

Well there it is in black and white.... frankly I'm not surprised and I've made the point before.
If anything AFTER gate revnues Canadian teams should have even higher relative total revenues due to general public interest.
Something like local tv money for example should be far superior in a place like Edmonton where the tv audience is vastly (I mean 10X) larger than in most US markets... the same goes for advertising and corporate sponsership.

The only thing that I would agree with on that would be local TV revenues (absent abberations such as NYI), bleed. THe rest would be dictated by actual arena deals regarding sharing of those revenues with the arena operator, and local corporate presence and corporate support.

Bleedoil makes his triumphant return!!!

{PS - I read that article in the paper this morning as well. I was wondering who would raise it first.}

 

[Fugu]

Noted.

Sorry to disappoint you, Fugs!

{Hope Nichols got quoted accurately!}

Ha ha. You added that as an afterthought.... Otherwise I'd be concerned about this uncharacteristic lack of feistiness in you.

 

[bleed_oil]

The only thing that I would agree with on that would be local TV revenues (absent abberations such as NYI), bleed. THe rest would be dictated by actual arena deals regarding sharing of those revenues with the arena operator, and local corporate presence and corporate support.

Bleedoil makes his triumphant return!!!

{PS - I read that article in the paper this morning as well. I was wondering who would raise it first.}

I've been waiting in the weeds for a chance to dicuss something interesting. Frankly there is'nt much available to kick around in the middle of July.