The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to
View Single Post
11-19-2012, 05:00 PM
Join Date: Aug 2011
Originally Posted by
I didn't really follow the other lockouts that deeply, but was the definition of basketball-related revenue (BBRR) or football-related revenue (FBRR) as hot a topic as HRR has been? And how do those compare.
Looking at an article I saw on the other day, they talked about the panthers as a team, operating at a loss, but during the previous lockout, instead of gaining income, the ownership group had it's worst year ever. That doesn't
sound like the team is truly operating at a loss, just a loss under certain definitions. All of that, to me, suggests that is a very strong argument that the definition of HRR is very much slanted towards the ownership. If that isn't the case for the NBA/NFL, then while the NHL players may get 14% more of the "revenues" that revenue pie is
to be a smaller portion of the "real" revenue pie that it would be under a more comparable definition, and perhaps that 14% makes up some of that difference?
That article was a joke. It's the same article that pops up every few years, written by a journalist with no finance training or background, using extremely limited financial information and making a bunch of assumptions with no support for them. And on top of all of that, even if you took his concluded income and allocated every bit to the hockey team, it would still be a ridiculously inadequate return on investment.
The simple fact is that hockey player compensation is way too high right now relative to the economics of the league. Second, the contracting issues that the owners are fighting for are huge for them, because hockey is fundamentally different than the other 3 big sports, in that the 'star' element is not as important as the 'team' element, in terms of either on-ice performance or financial success. NHL franchises cannot get locked into long term contracts and expect to be able to maintain stability across the league. And increased revenue sharing is just making the owners' pay for an issue that is systemic to the sport and directly reflective of the value of labor.
I would be willing to bet that the owners will refuse to bend on three things: 50/50 immediately, contract length/annual variance and make whole much above what they've already offerred. I think those are the the three key issues that they will stay dug in on. If the players agreed to that, the owners would probably cave on everything else.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Stickmata