View Single Post
Old
11-15-2012, 07:56 PM
  #152
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
One thing I love about ya, dude... You're willing to put the effort in.

I still say that the primary argument from the NHL's side of the issue, is that few teams are actually profitable. And that part of the reason that some see the revenue they do is because of a willingness to spend greater than the floor.

Where anything I've proposed differs from what I've heard, is that the players' cut in HRR percentage DIRECTLY ALLOCATES toward revenue-share. I think that it's critical and addresses both sides' positions on the subject.
You know, I like to look at all data and facts as well as analyze them. I like to know the how and why of things.
I think the NHL's primary argument is wrong and the numbers (according to Forbes) back me up. 9 teams this year, 6 over the CBA lost money. That is with the way the owners spent.

I agree that spending more (wisely) can help increase revenue. Too many teams however are not spending wisely.

I don't think they need that much more revenue sharing especially after getting to 50%. $220M or wherever they are at now is pretty good. The players are giving up a lot by going from 57% to 50%. $246M/year over 10 years at 5% revenue growth with the players' version of make whole. They would be at almost $400M of revenue sharing if you took everything the players are giving up and adding it to what they already share.

I think each owner needs to take more responsibility for his team. It shouldn't just come out of the players or the rich owners.

sjaustin77 is offline