View Single Post
11-27-2012, 06:37 PM
Ima Krejciist.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,050
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Excuse me for a few minutes. Gary Bettman said the last lockout was for affordable ticket prices. What happened? The ticket prices are not being rolled back with the players taking a 50-50 split. The ticket prices will continue to increase across the board. The owners will be making a ton. Revenue will continue to increase.

Big market teams will always have an advantage over smaller market teams. Hard cap or soft cap. The Dallas Cowboys don't operate on the same level as the Jacksonville Jaguars. The NFL has the purest hard cap system in pro sports. Biggest TV contracts. Revenue sharing. The teams are not equal footing. There is nothing in the NHL CBA designed to put the small market teams on the same footing as the big market teams.
Gary Bettman said the last lockout was because the NHL was in serious financial trouble and bleeding money. He wasn't wrong.

The NHL has actually been the league with talent most evenly spread out imo the past few years, but that's pure opinion. I honestly can't speak for baseball, but in the NBA you can simply buy a stacked team such as Boston, Miami, and now LA have done. It's comical, but not interesting to watch. At least it was a more even playing field for the NHL, now teams are struggling to afford high end players, and those players are moving to the high revenue markets... Nash and Richards to the Rangers for instance. In some form you'll never get rid of that, but at least putting those teams on an even level financially will give them a chance. They'd still have to turn the corner in regards to on-ice product but that would be a lot easier to do if you could afford to be competitive when the time was right.

Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The players have offered a 50-50 split.

You're too hung on the guarantee. The players won't need that because revenue will continue to increase. The business will continue to grow. Even the NHL proposal from October was based on 5% growth which might be conservative. The CBC contract expires soon.

Revenue sharing. The PA proposed revenue sharing at $240M. The owners proposed $190M from $150M. Then it was increases to $200M. Why isn't it at $240M if the big market owners care so much about the suffering small market brethren? The PA had to get the NHL to up their offer on revenue sharing. Jim Dolan,Ed Snider,Molson and the guys in Toronto really care about the teams in Nashville,Phoenix,Florida and Columbus.
The players offered a 50/50 split but demanded near double the make whole figure the NHL was offering. Obviously that wasn't palatable. And if I'm the one too hung up on a guarantee, why did the players set a minimum cap level in the only offer they linked stating it could never dip below 67 mill, and on top of that say that through years 2-5 in that offer their share couldn't decrease? It sounds like someone is hung up on a guarantee, but it ain't me.

As for revenue sharing, you'd have to be very naive to think the high revenue teams don't care about the smaller markets that are struggling considering revenue sharing is already in place and the high revenue teams are already losing money to them. The owners aren't weeping in sympathy, but they are losing dollars because of it and to a greedy business man that is more of a motivator. And why should a company like Rogers/Bell want more revenue sharing then the 200 million the owners are already offering? They just paid 1.32 billion for their franchise and you want them to give away a significant portion of their LOCAL revenues in order for other teams to afford out of control player costs? That sounds like a solid plan, and should be relatively easy to convince owners of. Let's make sure all franchises get 10 mill across the board with our new and improved revenue sharing program, fair for all and should only take those guys what, 50 or so years to make good on their investment? Easy sell.

Meanwhile, NHL'ers profit. There is literally no financial risk for them. You already have guys like Weber bringing in more profit in 2 years then the franchise he plays for has seen in the past decade. Owners are easy to hate, Bettman is easy to hate, I guess it can be a little more difficult to realize the guy you cheer for game in and game out is a greedy ******* as well.

Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Precedent when it's relevant.

Other players' contracts are relevant because you can make an apples to apples comparison within the same sport. When different sports have different markets, market share, revenue sharing, free agency terms, retirement plans, draft rules, franchising costs, TV contracts, merchandising contracts, etc., they quickly become apples to oranges comparisons.

It's easy to see why pro-owner folks would say "look at the other leagues" because the splits benefit them. If they didn't, pro-player folks would make the same claim. Doesn't make it valid. It's just more rhetoric ******** one group uses to defend their side.
We've been hearing "look at how the NFL shares revenues" throughout these discussions, comparing a league who brings in more revenue in national broadcasting contracts then the NHL does period. If we can compare them at that level why can't we compare players share?

If anything, those leagues both bring in far more money then the NHL and are naturally far more popular in much of the US. NBA has a broadcasting deal 3 times that of the NHLs new one. The NFL eclipses them all. The NHL doesn't touch either in merchandise sales either. With the equipment, travel and cost to run a rink (let alone a rink in TB) it isn't hard to see how the average NHL teams operating expenses would also most likely be much higher. It's not like NBA'ers go through a new pair of shoes every other shifts like NHL players do with sticks. Then look at the challenges associated with growing the NHL in southern markets. If anything, the players share in the NHL should be lower then it is in either of those leagues, and it's not a hard conclusion to come to. Yet the owners are offering a 50/50 split and money on top of that just to get the NHL to where those other top level professional sports leagues already are.

Why should owners want to make money in the NHL? Why should NHL players want to make so much is the better question. The average NHL salary is higher then what more then half the league brings in in revenue each year. Not to many businesses can thrive in that type of environment.

Last edited by Kaoz: 11-27-2012 at 06:43 PM.
Kaoz is offline