Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-06-2012, 11:05 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Originally Posted by
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later.
The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.
Nashville deserves more revenue sharing than the Islanders because Nashville has more suites and ad space in their arena?
Because it sounds like you don't know what's been going on for the Islanders for decades (That's not an insult; no one actually talks about it because it's been the same situation for 20 years!) let me lay it out for you.
When the Islanders signed their lease in 1985, they got zero advertising, zero concessions, and zero parking revenues. They did get all their suite revenue, but gave up 15% of their revenue for other tickets. At the time, no big deal. Advertising wasn't allowed on the boards or the ice. Not too many games were on TV so teams didn't bother trying to sell it.
Fast forward to modern sports business: Every other team in the league gets large revenue streams unavailable to the Islanders. Dead last in number of suites and club seats. Can't add LED boards and sell more ads, no space and you don't get that money anyway!
It is a chicken and the egg situation: But the Islanders clearly suck because they have no money. When their lease was not a factor: Sellout city, plenty of money, Fort Neverlose and a dynasty with four Stanley Cups.
Since the day ESPN got the rights to the NHL, and those ad spots brought in revenue, and expansion led to new rinks with more suites? Haven't won a playoff series since 1993. Multiple owners, multiple GMs. That's two decades of sucking under multiple regimes.
Originally Posted by
If that was the only thing holding them back then I'd give them a pass. When you draft, develop and hire poorly, as well as sign terrible, inflating contracts, you deserve to lose money. If you can't hire someone to make your team competitive you should lose money.
(Ok, now I'm getting heated. Sorry.)
Yes, the Islanders are mismanaged and poorly run. Maybe because they have to spend 75% of their HRR on the floor as per the last CBA, they can't afford to pay people like scouts, assistant GMs, etc? Ever think of that?
#1 - DRAFT.
Before the salary floor, the Islanders drafted Roberto Luongo, Tommy Salo, Rick DiPietro; Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Darius Kasparaitis, Eric Brewer, Bryan McCabe, Brad Lukowich; Todd Bertuzzi, Ziggy Palffy, JP Dumont (you're welcome!), Mike Rupp, Raffi Torres, Tim Connolly, Taylor Pyatt, Sean Bergenheim.
A little thin up front -- but some bad trades led to other draft picks. Ottawa took Jason Spezza with our pick after the Yashin trade; and if we kept Luongo, we'd have Danny Healtley.
I'd put that up against the drafts of any other franchise in that time frame (1993-2002)
The point here is: Their drafting has gone down since they slashed their scouting/executive budget because they have to pay to the floor, soaking up all their resources.
#2 - Develop.
That list above seemed to have pretty solid NHL careers. If the Islanders suck at developing players, the guys they traded the fastest would have had the best careers. Like Dumont would be better than Palffy (not true), Redden would be better than Chara (not true), Connolly would be better than Bertuzzi (not true), etc.
The Islanders failures in development were (a) Mike Milbury's impatience and (b) the fact that since the floor, the Islanders have rushed most their prospects to the NHL immediately, so their signing bonus money counts against the salary cap; since they don't have enough revenue to pay to the floor.
#3 - Hire poorly.
Who's going to take a job with lesser resources to succeed? Only those who have no business landing the job on merit (like a backup goalie). A talented executive took one look at the situation and bolted for the door. A horribly bad GM stuck around because no one else wanted him. Look at the Oilers. Have they been more successful with Glen Sather, or without him? Who pays their GM more? Edmonton or the Rangers?
#4 - Terrible, inflating contracts Part I (Yashin/Peca)
I'm not sure which ones you mean. We've had THREE big contracts in two decades (Yashin, Peca, DiPietro
First, when no one wants to play for you, you have to overpay. Take a nice long look at the players who've signed free agent deals with the Islanders. They are 34+ years old and had no where else to go; or they were really young minor league free agents, looking for a way into the league. The best player to sign a free agent contract with the Islanders in the last 15 years is Miroslav Satan.
Yashin and Peca held out because they didn't get what they wanted from OTT/BUF. The Islanders not only had trade for their rights, but then pay them a lot to sign and end their holdouts.
Secondly, those contracts didn't inflate jack. Yashin's deal was so outrageous, it ranked him as the 21st highest paid player in the league when he signed it.
Three years later, the market inflated so much that it was the 16th biggest salary. Other contracts didn't explode because of the Yashin deal. And Peca's contract never even rated in the top 25 salaries.
Terrible because those players weren't that good? Sure. But when NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY FOR YOU (because of the arena and because you have a history of sucking), how do you acquire talent? Overpaying.
#5 - Terrible, inflating contracts Part II (DiPietro)
Now here's the crazy contract. First off, his contract doesn't inflate at all. A flat $4.5 million across the board.
Second, what makes that contract bad… FOR THE ISLANDERS? It's a horrible contract for every other team in the league. But there's nothing bad about that contract for the Islanders.
A - We know now that DiPi is brittle and snaps him half when he moves. Really didn't back then.
B - If DiPietro was a franchise goalie, that's a great contract, because we had him for 15 years instead of six; cause someone would offer him more money at the end of a normal contract.
C - While paying a third-string goalie $4.5 million is cap hell for everyone else. We cheat to reach the cap floor. It doesn't prevent us from paying someone else. Not that anyone wants to sign with us anyway.
D - If we gotten a new arena by now and could be spending to the cap, we'd have $2 million more in cap space than if we signed him to a "normal" deal.
E - Once we're in the new building and can spend, the buyout isn't an issue. It's nice and manageable. Small cap-hit, money we can afford.
#6 - "you should lose money."
You said "If you can't hire someone to make your team competitive you should lose money."
Oh, is it that easy? Hell, why didn't Atlanta, Columbus or the Islanders think of that? Or any of the 14 teams who've never won the Cup? Or Toronto, Ottawa, Philadelphia, or anyone else who hasn't won it in a long time?
As I said before, when you have to spend a large percentage of HRR to hit the floor, it doesn't leave much else for things like executives and scouts.
When the Islanders make $63 million in revenues (last), and have a payroll at $37 million (using phantom bonus money to hit the floor), that leaves $26 million to spend on everything else.
The average NHL team spends $44 million in non-player expenses. Even operating at a $8 million loss, they are $10 million behind the league average.
No one here is saying their ownership or management is GOOD. Or even NOT BAD. Just that it's ridiculously hard to win when you're DMFL in revenues.
And that situation exists for the Islanders because of a lease signed in 1985. Blaming their current management for their revenue issues is insane.
Originally Posted by
As bad as the isles have been, lets see how it shakes out in brooklyn. I dont think that it will be the answer to all of their problems but the new arena most likely wont hurt, and its not like they can trade the owner.
If the isles cant make a run of it in one of the worlds most populous sports cities with a brand spanking new arena, then it might be time to re-evaluate the competence of ownership. A bad lease/building can sink a ship no matter how well it is run.
On the day of the Brooklyn announcement, one sports economist pointed out the Islanders would have as much as $35 million more per season in Barclays… from suite revenue alone.
Wang may be a horrible owner. But would he have been just as horrible with $35 million more in revenue a year? That buys a lot of scouts, coaches, and execs.
Originally Posted by
When the Sens came into the league, with the worst expansion draft, and languished in lottery position for half a decade, we were poor, had no chance to compete, and made a profit and survived. Parity is a nice goal, once they have 30 relatively equal teams. It seems to constantly fail though when it is used as a method for getting there.
So, were you for or against contracting the Senators when they went into bankruptcy?
Last edited by KevFu: 11-06-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KevFu