View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 03:36 AM
  #83
UsernameWasTaken
Let's Go Blue Jays!
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
There are plenty of other sports teams in the world where teams make huge sums of money more then other teams. Hell in professional soccer, there is no cap, there is no revenue sharing and teams like Man City, PSG, Chelsea etc with billionaire tycoon owners can spend $100 of millions more then others.

You think the Jaguars and the Seahawks, generate the same money as the Giants, Cowboys or Bears? Green Bay is the single smallest professionalism sports market in the country yet they get by.

The issue is the league isn't popular enough and generate enough revenue to pay the players these salaries. You can come on here and talk about the Maple Leafs, Canadiens and Rangers needing to share more but the amount they would have to share to fix the smaller teams would mean they don't generate enough profit for themselves.

It also has to do with why revenue sharing in other sports works better and is fairer. MLB, NBA and of course the NFL have huge national TV deals which is where most of the leagues profit comes from, here is an amazing stat, the NFL could close it's stadiums and play games on a field with no stands and generate not ticket sales, concessions or parking and still make a profit from the TV deal alone. MLB and NBA TV deals make up about 50% of the league revenue. Where as in the NHL only about 25% of the leagues revenue is from their TV deal. So in other sports leagues smaller market teams are making a larger % of the leagues pot, where as in the NHL your telling teams to give up their money, not the leagues money but their money to other teams, so the whole higher % of revenue sharing doesn't work as well.

This is why player salaries have to come down, the league making the least amount of money by far can't be 3rd in payroll, it has to be last to match what the league makes. Giving players 57% of the leagues revenue is ridiculous and the players demanding X sum of money no matter the leagues revenue the next few years is stupid and beyond greedy. The players might not like the contractual restrictions, well then give up your ridiculous demands and maybe the owners will do the same but asking for a raise in your salary no matter the leagues profit is a joke.
i think you may have misunderstood my post (i probably wasn't clear) - b/c i don't really disagree with most of what you're saying. my comment was re that you can't complain about the presence of a union but expect the NHL to implement the structure that it wishes to.

with a structure like the NHL has, it is difficult to control the finances in the way it wants to w/o having unionized players. if the CBA isn't settled by late June there's not going to be a draft. With no union at all (and above a couple were complaining about the presence of a union - that's what i was responding to), the teams can't just get together and decide to impose a cap/floor on their spending. they also can't get together and come up with ELC, UFA rules all by themselves. so, the presence of a union is what has allowed the NHL to implement its current business form.

also, i don't think the leafs, habs, NYR should share more in a general sense - i don't like the salary cap at all. i'd prefer a luxury tax. my point is that if the NHL wants to implement the capped structure in the way it has, then cutting back salaries right now will only help them for so long...but after not too long the "have" teams will continue to grow (esp. T.O. and NYC) and start to shove the cap (and floor) to a point where the "have nots" have trouble competing. slashing the players' hrr % is only a temporary fix.

bettman says the problem is the teams are "paying too much in salary" - but an additional problem is the teams aren't all growing and increasing revenue at the same rate - and if the rev. generation of the teams at the top continues to significantly outpace the teams at the lower end then in a few years it will force the cap/floor to a point where the poorer teams can't compete.

...and plz find where i've ever said the players should have 57% of the revenue at this point. i've never said that - the closest you might have read me come to saying that is when people whine that the players were "getting too much" before, i've pointed out that they were entitled to it under the previous CBA - it wasn't an ill-begotten % - the owners agreed to it when the players agreed to the cap. I don't think the players should get 57%...however, i think if the NHL wants to continue with the ill-advised structure it was implemented (and refuse to move the worst of the losers to cities that would be commercially viable) then the NHL/owners should have to bear some of the financial burden of the business structure they insist must be in place.

UsernameWasTaken is offline   Reply With Quote