View Single Post
11-17-2012, 02:19 AM
Registered User
sjaustin77's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Back to your other questions. You have to stop thinking of this as a whole and begin to look at it as 30 franchises. I'll use the same thing I did with MMB 3 threads ago that seemed to change his opinion somewhat on the situation.

Think of Tim Horton's. The NHL is the same way. The NHL is run by the 30 owners, each owning their own franchise. Tim Horton's is the same way. The difference is, like any franchise operation, you don't rob one franchise to pay another. Each and every franchise has to be able to turn a profit. If it doesn't, they find a way to do it, or they move it, or shut it down. In sports, they've gotten away from that a bit and come up with revenue sharing. Good on the owners. They've gotten away from the typical franchise agreements. Not just the NHL, but in all major sports. But each individual franchise has to be self sustaining, or it doesn't work. The League (or Tim Horton's) as a whole shows profitability, but not every franchise is.

As for Forbes, like I said, they are pretty close. But when your talking about $3.3 billion in revenue, $2 or $3 million here or there isn't a lot of money per season is it? Over the life of the CBA, still not a lot when you consider the revenue that came in. Re-do the numbers of those teams on the cusp with a $2 or $3 million difference and see what you come up with.

2 or 3 million less for every team? I will when I get time.

As for the proposals that put $250 million back in the hands of the owners. I'm not denying that it is fact. It does. Look at it this way: How much does it put in the hands of the 30 franchises? It's not split equally 30 ways when it's done. The majority of that money goes back to the top 5 teams that produce revenue. I haven't seen any formula proposed where it's split evenly. Again, you have to stop thinking as a whole, it has to work for all 30 franchises.
For the owner's salary I meant in there as an expense. You said yes which based on the way I meant the question the owners aren't losing what they (Forbes) show. I'm not sure that is what you meant. Let me ask a little different to clarify. Team A shows a $3M loss. In that $3M is an expense for $5M in owners salary through the year. So it looks like the team lost $3M but the owner made $5M. The team actually made $2M.

I'll break this first part out and see if I have time to get to your project for me on the rest later. I don't know what each team shared for revenue so I don't know if I can do exactly what you want at least on that aspect. I don't question your connections or numbers and respect the privacy. I didn't want to know them privately only if you could openly share.

I have looked at each franchise. How and why the make or lose money along with the whole. I understand the Horton's analogy; of course sports are a lot different as they are more of a partnership. I don't think different Horton's owners are sharing revenue or make money because of the other one.

I'm not sure I get the ~$250M going mostly to the rich owners. If they cut back to 50% wouldn't each teams salary be cut back based on what they are paying out? I actually have a spreadsheet of that someplace. While that will save the ones who spend more the most money initially, won't the increased revenue sharing come out of those teams so the poor teams end up benefiting the most?

Let's keep this simple and say there are 4 teams in the league. Toronto, Montreal, Phoenix and Islanders. New cut at 50/50, leave out make whole for a minute. The top spenders (Mon & Tor) average cap at 65M will save about $8.5M. Phoenix and the Islanders average spending of $50M will save $6.5M. So they save $2M less but then Tor & Mon have to share most of their increased earnings. If they are transferring $5M each; now Phoenix & NY are $11.5M better total than at 57% under the old CBA. Toronto and Montreal are only $3.5M better off.

That is how I understand it. Each team is better off but the poor teams actually end up with more. I have run the numbers even without shifting additional revenue sharing and there were only a couple of teams that wouldn't have covered their income loss. Only Phoenix and Columbus showed more than $8.5M Income loss. With the floor at $48.3 last year every team saves at least ~$6.3M. Increased revenue sharing would transfer from the rich owners to cover the rest. That is with spending how they have with many obviously overbudget.

I also believe Isles & NJ were 2 teams that weren't allowed to get revenue sharing in the last CBA. I think they are changing some of those restrictions so more teams will be able to be helped.

sjaustin77 is offline