HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   Should there be Revenue Sharing limits? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1280141)

MoreOrr 11-06-2012 12:54 PM

Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
 
Asking the question in the title, but being a bit more specific, meaning a Revenue Sharing limit as to how many consecutive years a team can be on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing, and how much money in total any particular team might be shared over a period of time.

I would think that, No, there shouldn't necessarily be a limit as to how many years and how much money a team receives in Revenue Sharing, not if the teams handing out the money are willing to keep handing it out. However, to me it seems counter-productive to maintain a certain team indefinitely if it's never going to earn a profit. Eventually, one would think, it might be better to cut and move on to potentially better pastures.

But then, what if it's the owners and the management of the franchise and the team which is deemed the cause for the franchises failures and economic woes? Is there never anything the League can do to fix such problems and actually give a team and its city a real chance to have some success?

HockeyShack 11-06-2012 12:57 PM

I sorta agree with what you say, but also if the team doesn't try to earn revenue then is it really the leagues fault?

MoreOrr 11-06-2012 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HockeyShack (Post 55565955)
I sorta agree with what you say, but also if the team doesn't try to earn revenue then is it really the leagues fault?

Exactly, and that relates to the last paragraph of the OP. What, if anything, can the League do if it seems fairly clear that a team/franchise is continually struggling (on ice and financially) due to poor management? Can or should Revenue Sharing be limited at least based on that?

cheswick 11-06-2012 01:02 PM

There was limits placed on revceiving in the previous CBA and it just exasperated the porblems those teams faced.

There should be no limits on it whatsoever if the system is how the NHL wants. ie cap and floor based on overall league revenues. Even if you relocated 3 or 4 teams, the fundamental issue is that certain teams may be driving the revenue growth, those teams that don't can't afford to pay to the floor. Revenue sharing bridges that gap. That will always exist whenever there is disparity in the amount of revenue different teams in the league generates.

sandysan 11-06-2012 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 55565861)
Asking the question in the title, but being a bit more specific, meaning a Revenue Sharing limit as to how many consecutive years a team can be on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing, and how much money in total any particular team might be shared over a period of time.

I would think that, No, there shouldn't necessarily be a limit as to how many years and how much money a team receives in Revenue Sharing, not if the teams handing out the money are willing to keep handing it out. However, to me it seems counter-productive to maintain a certain team indefinitely if it's never going to earn a profit. Eventually, one would think, it might be better to cut and move on to potentially better pastures.

But then, what if it's the owners and the management of the franchise and the team which is deemed the cause for the franchises failures and economic woes? Is there never anything the League can do to fix such problems and actually give a team and its city a real chance to have some success?


Put another way, could a team be so mismanaged that they could be precluded from getting RS ? Theoretically I think yes, I dont see people bemoaning the thrashers relocating because the owners in Atlanta washed their hands of them. The problem is who gets to decide whether a teams lot in life is the result of their incompetence or things beyond their control ? I think it exceedingly unlikely that a consensus could be agreed to.

MoreOrr 11-06-2012 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheswick (Post 55566123)
There was limits placed on revceiving in the previous CBA and it just exasperated the porblems those teams faced.

There should be no limits on it whatsoever if the system is how the NHL wants. ie cap and floor based on overall league revenues. Even if you relocated 3 or 4 teams, the fundamental issue is that certain teams may be driving the revenue growth, those teams that don't can't afford to pay to the floor. Revenue sharing bridges that gap. That will always exist whenever there is disparity in the amount of revenue different teams in the league generates.

Just taking your post in general, I'm in total agreement. Revenue Sharing is a good thing, definitely, especially in any league where is exists economic disparities and especially to the degree that it exists in the NHL. But I'm really being specific with respect to certain teams continually and always being on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing. One would think that, as a League, all teams would be expected to at least ocassionally be among the 'givers' in Revenue Sharing and not always the 'receivers' (or at the very minimum, be among a group of teams that not gives nor receives because they're in the middle).

Fishhead 11-06-2012 01:13 PM

Off the top of my head, one idea would be to require that a certain amount of revenue sharing dollars received must be allocated towards promotion. A percentage of it would be appropriate, as the more you receive, the more you really need to get butts in the seats.

KINGS17 11-06-2012 01:31 PM

The answer to the question as the system stands today is no.

The CyNick 11-06-2012 01:33 PM

revenue sharing has always seemed like a flawed concept designed to help failing businesses.

if a team like the islanders can't sell tickets, should they get money from the league? they are in a huge market, and therefore shouldn't need a handout.

on the other hand should a team in a market that shouldn't have hockey to begin with get revenue sharing? or should the league move them?

what about the team like winnipeg that should be failing based on the size of their market, but because of the fact that they are good at selling hockey, they generate a lot of revenues, they don't get free money?

revenue sharing will really only serve to delay the death of a few markets that shouldn't have hockey and reward failing franchises.

the only money that should be shared are things like the national tv contract. the rest should be left up to the teams to manage based in their market size and the demands for hockey in that market.

The CyNick 11-06-2012 01:42 PM

if you are to have revenue sharing, it a should be on a very limited basis. maybe a max of two payments every ten years

Mayor Bee 11-06-2012 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 55566989)
revenue sharing has always seemed like a flawed concept designed to help failing businesses.

if a team like the islanders can't sell tickets, should they get money from the league? they are in a huge market, and therefore shouldn't need a handout.

on the other hand should a team in a market that shouldn't have hockey to begin with get revenue sharing? or should the league move them?

what about the team like winnipeg that should be failing based on the size of their market, but because of the fact that they are good at selling hockey, they generate a lot of revenues, they don't get free money?

revenue sharing will really only serve to delay the death of a few markets that shouldn't have hockey and reward failing franchises.

the only money that should be shared are things like the national tv contract. the rest should be left up to the teams to manage based in their market size and the demands for hockey in that market.

So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

Riptide 11-06-2012 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreOrr (Post 55565861)
Asking the question in the title, but being a bit more specific, meaning a Revenue Sharing limit as to how many consecutive years a team can be on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing, and how much money in total any particular team might be shared over a period of time.

I would think that, No, there shouldn't necessarily be a limit as to how many years and how much money a team receives in Revenue Sharing, not if the teams handing out the money are willing to keep handing it out. However, to me it seems counter-productive to maintain a certain team indefinitely if it's never going to earn a profit. Eventually, one would think, it might be better to cut and move on to potentially better pastures.

But then, what if it's the owners and the management of the franchise and the team which is deemed the cause for the franchises failures and economic woes? Is there never anything the League can do to fix such problems and actually give a team and its city a real chance to have some success?

My only concern about RS is to ensure that team #15 (who earns RS) doesn't make more (or lose less) than team #14 (who does NOT earn qualify for RS) based solely on them receiving a RS cheque.

Because that situation would prevent a team from trying to maximize their growth, revenue, etc. However baring that, no there shouldn't be any limits on how often a team can qualify for RS.

There'll always be teams at the bottom of the list based on teams in Canada (and other big markets) who can charge retarded ticket prices (and have zero issues selling out). What does it matter if teams are always on the RS pony? As long as they're not in a situation where they don't attempt to maximize their growth/potential so they still qualify for RS, then it shouldn't matter.

As long as a owner is still willing to attempt to keep a team in a market, then there's no reason to move them, or to pull their RS cheque.

The CyNick 11-06-2012 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55567287)
So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

I don't think that should be a group decision. I think if the owner of winnipeg jets saw potential profits in the future, he would be willing to eat short term losses. if the owner sees the market as a dog, he shouldn't be able to just sit back and fail off the back of those who are successful. he should instead look to sell the team to someone locally who can be successful in the market, our move it somewhere that it can be a success, or sell it.

Gump Hasek 11-06-2012 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55567287)
So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

Winnipeg's attendance back then sans the lame duck season was basically akin to the league averages at that time. The key difference of course between Winnipeg at that time and markets like Columbus today is that Columbus remains a money pit after receiving many millions annually of league welfare. There was no revenue sharing available to Winnipeg at that time.

The two situations are not at all analogous and as such your post doesn't exactly embolden whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

powerstuck 11-06-2012 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 55568287)
I don't think that should be a group decision. I think if the owner of winnipeg jets saw potential profits in the future, he would be willing to eat short term losses. if the owner sees the market as a dog, he shouldn't be able to just sit back and fail off the back of those who are successful. he should instead look to sell the team to someone locally who can be successful in the market, our move it somewhere that it can be a success, or sell it.

What you are saying/proposing is what WOULD HAVE to be done, would the NHL chose to limit cash/years of teams being on Revenue sharing.

But then again, seeing how long NHL is giving a chance to Coyotes (team believed to not have made a single $ of profit since it was moved to Arizona) it's hard to think that would ever work.

Mayor Bee 11-06-2012 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The CyNick (Post 55568287)
I don't think that should be a group decision. I think if the owner of winnipeg jets saw potential profits in the future, he would be willing to eat short term losses. if the owner sees the market as a dog, he shouldn't be able to just sit back and fail off the back of those who are successful. he should instead look to sell the team to someone locally who can be successful in the market, our move it somewhere that it can be a success, or sell it.

I understand this entirely; I see MLB teams (Pittsburgh and Kansas City, primarily) who have had little interest in fielding a winning team, but simply pocket the revenue sharing check. Then again, MLB also doesn't have a salary floor of any type, so the MLB and NHL situations aren't entirely comparable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 55568531)
Winnipeg's attendance back then sans the lame duck season was basically akin to the league averages at that time. The key difference of course between Winnipeg at that time and markets like Columbus today is that Columbus remains a money pit after receiving many millions annually of league welfare. There was no revenue sharing available to Winnipeg at that time.

The two situations are not at all analogous and as such your post doesn't exactly embolden whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

As an absolutely raw number, sure. That's because many teams played in smaller arenas. Winnipeg Arena was 15,565, but then again, Vancouver was 16,281; Maple Leaf Gardens was a lot of spots between 15,000 and 16,500; Pittsburgh was 16,033; Philly was around 17,000 (with several renovations); Montreal was 16,500; Los Angeles was 16,005; Minnesota was 15,000; Quebec was 15,750; Buffalo was 16,433 and 16,325; and Boston was 14,448.

Funny thing...none of them had any problem consistently hitting 90% (which Winnipeg never did). And you've been telling us for how long now that raw numbers mean nothing, while that's the only thing that supports your idea of Winnipeg being close to "league average" in anything?

Gump Hasek 11-06-2012 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55568811)
Funny thing...none of them had any problem consistently hitting 90% (which Winnipeg never did). And you've been telling us for how long now that raw numbers mean nothing, while that's the only thing that supports your idea of Winnipeg being close to "league average" in anything?

No, I've been telling you that raw attendance sans revenue context is meaningless. I'm also not the one arguing attendance as a metric either; I'm conversely the one pointing out that your previous post was full of holes.

Riptide 11-06-2012 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 55568531)
Winnipeg's attendance back then sans the lame duck season was basically akin to the league averages at that time. The key difference of course between Winnipeg at that time and markets like Columbus today is that Columbus remains a money pit after receiving many millions annually of league welfare. There was no revenue sharing available to Winnipeg at that time.

The two situations are not at all analogous and as such your post doesn't exactly embolden whatever point it was that you were trying to make.

Columbus isn't a major issue in the NHL. There's other teams right around them (~80m) in revenue (Colorado and St Louis being 2 of them, and Forbes says Colorado posted a profit). Phoenix and NYI are issues (NYI is arena related). The issue is that 80m isn't enough to compete with Toronto and the other big boys. Give Columbus some competent management (something they've never really had), and some time and success and they'll manage as well as the other teams in their revenue bracket.

Mayor Bee 11-06-2012 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gump Hasek (Post 55569033)
No, I've been telling you that raw attendance sans revenue context is meaningless. I'm also not the one arguing attendance as a metric either; I'm conversely the one pointing out that your previous post was full of holes.

Ah, so one type of raw number is fine and can be accepted as is, but not the other. Careful analysis of that second one is necessary, but it's completely needless for the first one since it specifically refutes the point that accepting the raw number would lead one to believe.

How silly of me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riptide (Post 55569075)
Columbus isn't a major issue in the NHL. There's other teams right around them (~80m) in revenue (Colorado and St Louis being 2 of them, and Forbes says Colorado posted a profit). Phoenix and NYI are issues (NYI is arena related). The issue is that 80m isn't enough to compete with Toronto and the other big boys. Give Columbus some competent management (something they've never really had), and some time and success and they'll manage as well as the other teams in their revenue bracket.

Pretty much everyone recognizes this. That is, of course, unless they spend weeks of their time trying to provoke CBJ fans who like to bring up inconvenient facts.

Gump Hasek 11-06-2012 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55569633)
Ah, so one type of raw number is fine and can be accepted as is, but not the other. Careful analysis of that second one is necessary, but it's completely needless for the first one since it specifically refutes the point that accepting the raw number would lead one to believe.

How silly of me.

I'm not arguing attendance, just pointing out that your initial claim was specious at best. The point that you seem to be glossing over is that any comparison of the two markets was not at all analogous, given that Columbus currently remains a money pit long after receiving north of $10 million in annual welfare, for several years running, welfare that was not at all afforded to Winnipeg previously. Your attendance claims are moot as such. Hope that helps.

Puckschmuck* 11-06-2012 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55567287)
So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

Well, Mayor Bee bringing up Winnipeg yet again, and again, and again trying to provoke Winnipeg fans. Color me shocked.

KevFu 11-06-2012 03:36 PM

Let me ask you this:

If every team in 2011 was managed well, everyone had "good" revenue streams so that no one was far behind the floor with 57% of HRR, and every team turned a profit... which teams would get revenue sharing?

MoreOrr 11-06-2012 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevFu (Post 55570843)
Let me ask you this:

If every team in 2011 was managed well, everyone had "good" revenue streams so that no one was far behind the floor with 57% of HRR, and every team turned a profit... which teams would get revenue sharing?

Very few, if any, but most importantly the sharing amounts would likely be quite small.... under your scenario.

KevFu 11-06-2012 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mayor Bee (Post 55567287)
So when Winnipeg originally went all those years without drawing a profit (or much of a crowd), their demise was not only to be expected but actually deserved? When Minnesota had the same problem, were they a market that "shouldn't have hockey"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puckschmuck (Post 55570265)
Well, Mayor Bee bringing up Winnipeg yet again, and again, and again trying to provoke Winnipeg fans. Color me shocked.

First off, Mayor Bee, don't intentionally provoke people (not saying you were here, but don't in the future).
Secondly, Puck, even if he was (I didn't see it that way), he brings up the point I'm trying to make:

In a situation where everyone in the league was well managed and profitable; competitive for a playoff spot. And no team had those circumstances that made them revenue disasters (bankruptcy, arena/lease issues, etc)...

... odds are that the teams who would be in the bottom of revenues are going to be those with the smallest fan bases by total number of people. Teams like Buffalo, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Florida, Tampa, Phoenix and yes, possibly Winnipeg.

There's only so much small markets like BUF, CAR, WIN, NASH can rely on the limited number of people in their market to give the teams. Per person in the market, that's a lot of dough for each fan to contribute.

It's the same principle at work as "market saturation" where teams in four-sport cities, the fourth franchise doesn't draw so well (FLA and PHX, who are also likely to be at the bottom). There's a finite number of dollars per market.

So my question from above:If everyone was LOCKED IN at maximizing revenues for six straight years: There's no more they can squeeze aside from matching inflation. Everyone's doing great, making money, the CBA is working perfectly: Revenue sharing doesn't go away. And the same teams are going to get revenue sharing year after year after year. "Revenue Sharing" wouldn't be bailing out or subsidizing poor teams, it would simply be "market equalization."

And there's zero problem with that. That would be great for the league and the game would GROW. That's the ideal situation, isn't it?

Gump Hasek 11-06-2012 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevFu (Post 55571569)
First off, Mayor Bee, don't intentionally provoke people (not saying you were here, but don't in the future).
Secondly, Puck, even if he was (I didn't see it that way), he brings up the point I'm trying to make:

In a situation where everyone in the league was well managed and profitable; competitive for a playoff spot. And no team had those circumstances that made them revenue disasters (bankruptcy, arena/lease issues, etc)...

... odds are that the teams who would be in the bottom of revenues are going to be those with the smallest fan bases by total number of people. Teams like Buffalo, Carolina, Nashville, Columbus, Florida, Tampa, Phoenix and yes, possibly Winnipeg.

There's only so much small markets like BUF, CAR, WIN, NASH can rely on the limited number of people in their market to give the teams. Per person in the market, that's a lot of dough for each fan to contribute.

It's the same principle at work as "market saturation" where teams in four-sport cities, the fourth franchise doesn't draw so well (FLA and PHX, who are also likely to be at the bottom). There's a finite number of dollars per market.

So my question from above:If everyone was LOCKED IN at maximizing revenues for six straight years: There's no more they can squeeze aside from matching inflation. Everyone's doing great, making money, the CBA is working perfectly: Revenue sharing doesn't go away. And the same teams are going to get revenue sharing year after year after year. "Revenue Sharing" wouldn't be bailing out or subsidizing poor teams, it would simply be "market equalization."

And there's zero problem with that. That would be great for the league and the game would GROW. That's the ideal situation, isn't it?

Winnipeg isn't amongst the lower revenue tier grouping that you've chosen to lump them with however, not even close. Small market doesn't equate to small revenue in this specific case.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.