Revenue Sharing Checks

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Honestly, this is one of those closely guarded NHL secrets. I don't think they really want the information out there.

One of the last data points is from the Phoenix bankruptcy trial, and other leaks about recipients. I think we all know who is on the receiving end, but the exact amount isn't publicized. I've seen some of the bigger figures quoted as $10-14 million.
 

A Pointed Stick

No Idea About The Future
Dec 23, 2010
16,105
333
Honestly, this is one of those closely guarded NHL secrets. I don't think they really want the information out there.

One of the last data points is from the Phoenix bankruptcy trial, and other leaks about recipients. I think we all know who is on the receiving end, but the exact amount isn't publicized. I've seen some of the bigger figures quoted as $10-14 million.

Holy crap. That's not something to sneeze at. I realize it is an estimate, but it needs to come to light. It is in the league's best interests to out any owner that takes the check but still refuses to spend money on the club besides the floor minimum, such as the Isle's owner.
 

danishh

Registered User
Dec 9, 2006
33,018
53
YOW
Holy crap. That's not something to sneeze at. I realize it is an estimate, but it needs to come to light. It is in the league's best interests to out any owner that takes the check but still refuses to spend money on the club besides the floor minimum, such as Wang.

thanks the way the revenue-sharing mechanism is set up and the existence of the cap floor, it's impossible for the NHL to have a Marlins-type situation where an owner can cash large revenue-sharing cheques and make money off a barebones team. If you're getting a large revenue-sharing cheque in the NHL, you're losing large amounts of money.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Holy crap. That's not something to sneeze at. I realize it is an estimate, but it needs to come to light. It is in the league's best interests to out any owner that takes the check but still refuses to spend money on the club besides the floor minimum, such as the Isle's owner.


The CBA requires all teams to spend to at least the floor minimum. They cannot really pocket that money because the way it's calculated is based on their spending, and bringing the team up to the floor and cap midpoints.


Edit: danishh beats me out by seconds!
 

A Pointed Stick

No Idea About The Future
Dec 23, 2010
16,105
333
One of the few articles I had read on the subject (surprisingly few of those that go into any detail) had stated that there was a committee that would oversee the checks, and review how the money was used. It appeared to be strongly recommended that the money go back into the roster, and that any pocketing of the money while leaving the team to whither and die at cba minimum salary level would result in the committee opening the team's books and getting, "involved." I don't know to what extent "involved" meant, but I can't imagine any of the league owners wanting someone looking at their books that closely, or getting involved in operations. There also appeared to be provisions for a team to get more than the formulaic check.

I would think it would be in the league's best interests for the revenue sharing to be public knowledge. If a team takes the check and wastes the hard earned money of the better off clubs they should get hammered by their fan base, let alone everyone else.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
One of the few articles I had read on the subject (surprisingly few of those that go into any detail) had stated that there was a committee that would oversee the checks, and review how the money was used. It appeared to be strongly recommended that the money go back into the roster, and that any pocketing of the money while leaving the team to whither and die at cba minimum salary level would result in the committee opening the team's books and getting, "involved." I don't know to what extent "involved" meant, but I can't imagine any of the league owners wanting someone looking at their books that closely, or getting involved in operations. There also appeared to be provisions for a team to get more than the formulaic check.

I would think it would be in the league's best interests for the revenue sharing to be public knowledge. If a team takes the check and wastes the hard earned money of the better off clubs they should get hammered by their fan base, let alone everyone else.


The new CBA added another level of money that can potentially be divvied out. The first portion, a transfer of revenue from big teams to eligible bottom 15 teams (in terms of HRR), is what most people refer to as revenue sharing. This shouldn't be confused with NHL revenue that is divided between all 30 teams potentially.

The transfer payments are what we were discussing above, and the NHL will redistribute roughly $200 MM.

There is an Industry Growth fund, to be funded up to $60 MM over the next three years, which will be used at the commissioner's discretion. There is a committee of sorts and process to review the use of this money.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
There is an Industry Growth fund, to be funded up to $60 MM over the next three years, which will be used at the commissioner's discretion.

There is a committee of sorts and process to review the revenue transfer money.

Is it not $80M after Fehr & the PA asked that it be $160M?... and further, what "oversight"? I believe its distributed "at the Commissioners discretion" no?. There were tales of Gary there promising Le Blanc & IceAz of an extra large piece of that pie for sitting down at the table & tucking in yes? And this figure, is it annual or is it $60M/$80M over 3 years and not 12 mnths?
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
Is it not $80M after Fehr & the PA asked that it be $160M?... and further, what "oversight"? I believe its distributed "at the Commissioners discretion" no?. There were tales of Gary there promising Le Blanc & IceAz of an extra large piece of that pie for sitting down at the table & tucking in yes? And this figure, is it annual or is it $60M/$80M over 3 years and not 12 mnths?


From one of our CBA threads, and yes, the committee is for the revenue transfer, not the fund:

Sacramento Bee (not a widely cited source here, but legitimate nonetheless) AP story provides some more details on revenue sharing:

- Revenue sharing will increase to $200 million annually and rise with revenue

- An industry growth fund of $60 million will be funded by the sides over three years and replenished as needed

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/06/5095071/key-details-in-tentative-nhl-labor.html





http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=66806545&postcount=63


Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee:
- New committee created "The RSOC will consist of three (3) members chosen by the NHLPA (including at least 1 Player) and four (4) members chosen by the Commissioner, including a Chairman (and also including at least 1 Owner). The Commissioner of the NHL and the Executive Director of the NHLPA shall serve as ex-officio members of the RSOC with all rights and privileges of a RSOC member, except voting rights."
- Committee has authority to review various club financial reporting, but not 100% guaranteed access to all business related books.
- Committee can vote to increase or decrease a particular team's revenue sharing distribution by up to 15%.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->