Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?
View Single Post
11-12-2012, 01:55 AM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Originally Posted by
The giveaways to fans are "growing the game". I don't think there should be complaints about sharing when the big guys are throwing away money left, right and sideways and that includes making high risk personnel decisions. Those risks are not growing the game.
I think the major factor in the opposition to revenue sharing is resentment.
I understand that when people have to pay high prices, and see other teams giving away tickets, they get upset.
I also understand fans being upset when their high-charging teams miss the playoffs and teams with far fewer fans make the playoffs.
However, I don't think any of that ticket prices, nor high-charging teams' failure in the standings is in any way related to revenue sharing.
Originally Posted by
I previously asked how long should the grace period be for non traditional markets and no one answered.
If non traditional markets want to grow the game then they have to be responsible and in it for the long haul ( kind of like the preds) where it is clear that they are interested in the gane not going from one failed promotion to the next that cheapens the games. It says something profound that in many cases it costs less to fly from a have city to see a have team in a have not arena.
So if you think it takes 20 years to stable under ideal conditions, i presume you would be okay with a team getting rs for 25 years straight? Since you were kind enough to answer my previous question, do you think that there is a time when you have to say some markets are not sustainable ? If so, when does the clock reach zero?
The "responsibility for growing the game" was taken off their shoulders when the NHL took away their marketing budgets by jacking up the minimum payroll by $39 million ($12 mil before the lockout; $51 million last season).
The reason no one gives you a time frame is because: Pulling the plug on franchises is a PR disaster of epic proportions.
The league has been trying to dispel the notion that the NHL is a niche sport that only belongs in Canada, the extreme North of the United States, and maybe Denver and Los Angeles.
That notion is why the league doesn't get major media time.
That notion is why the league doesn't have a TV deal similar to the other Big Four.
Now, there's some basis for the opinion. In general, far less people care about hockey outside of Canada, the extreme North of the United States, and maybe Denver and Los Angeles.
For the league to formally declare that opinion as fact… disastrous. I could paint you a very similar analogy, but it would probably range outside the scope of the Business of Hockey and be inappropriate.
Originally Posted by
the league has rev sharing, so some of MY money goes to the Yotes?
Why do I pay? and if the Yotes tickets sold for the same $100 per, at least that part would be equal. Now I see a lot of you already ahead of me on this
We all know the Yotes sell great tickets for $20 per of even less on promo with beer+parking at $40 for 4 tickets,4 beer and 4 dogs
Now will ANYBODY explain to why part of MY money is paying for cheap tickets and free beer and free food to a Yotes fan because the NHL has rev-sharing????????? At the very least. The NHL should set the price of tickets and every club charges the same. WOW would that prove that some teams are in the wrong place. When the CDN dollar was at .60 of the US dollar this might have worked BUT NOT NOW and NEVER AGAIN.
Nobody wants to tell the fan the truth of this rip-off.
#1 - What Does It Matter Where Your Money Goes After You Pay For The Ticket?
Out of a $100 ticket, less than $2 per ticket is going into revenue sharing. But if you think if revenue sharing didn't exist, you'd only have to pay $98 for a ticket, you're mistaken. You're not charged $100 instead of $98 because of revenue sharing.
You're getting charged $100 because you'll pay $100 (and if you don't, someone else will gladly step in for the privilege). If you don't want your $2 going to revenue sharing, don't buy the ticket.
If that $2 didn't go to revenue sharing, where would it go? Into the pockets of the corporation that owns the team. Corporations really don't care about providing the customers with any more than what they have to do in order to get the customers coming back (Just out of curiosity, who was the last NHL team owned by a big corporation that won the Stanley Cup?
It's funny to me that the three richest teams have won 2 Cups in the last 25 years, and none since 1995. Throw in the Flyers who are Cupless since the 70s, and that's TWO cups since 1980… by the four-richest corporate owned teams in hockey. The Four richest NON-corporate owned teams in hockey have won 6 of the last 16 Cups. Hmmm. The guys who treat the team as a hobby win; the guys who treat it like a business don't win very often).
It's not like the revenue sharing money prevents the team from spending on players. With a salary cap, Molson Corp. merely pockets the money.
So, your choice: Throw $2 into a billionaire's money vault, or have more people interested in hockey around the globe.
#2 - Revenue sharing exists because teams that don't have money are NOT ALLOWED to spend "only what they can afford."
The agreement the owners had to make with the players guaranteed them 57% of all the league's HRR. How do the owners all pay 57% of HRR. The owners all said that 57% of HRR was all they could afford to pay the players.
So, in order to give the players 57%, why not have each team pay 57% of their HRR into a central fund, and the NHL used that to pay all the players? Every team could still offer contracts, they'd just be paid by the league and their payrolls couldn't go over the salary cap. That's fair, isn't it?
Hell no! Teams like Phoenix could go out and throw $62 million worth of contract offers out in free agency and pay only $31 million. The Canadiens would be turning over $98 million and getting $62 million worth of players!
Instead, the Canadiens pay $74 million for $62 million worth of players (4.5% of local HRR). That's 44.8% of their HRR.
This is why the rich teams agreed to Revenue Sharing. Instead of TOR, MON, NYR, DET, PHI, BOS, VAN getting into bidding wars and paying 70% of their revenues on players, the cap and floor and 4.5% revenue sharing means these teams are paying like 45% of their HRR on revenue sharing.
It's a freaking steal for them. They are choosing profits over a spending war to win championships.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KevFu