View Single Post
01-21-2013, 01:04 PM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,633
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
No, 16% more than they made under the old cba.

43% of 3.3 Billion = 1,419,000,000
50% of 3.3 billion = 1,650,000,000

Ownership will make an additional 230mil/year at 3.3 billion total HRR.

That's a 16% increase on what the 1.4billion they made under the old CBA.

The increase in revenue sharing is only 60 mil/year (from 140-> 200).

Another way to look at it- ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves.
Yes exactly. They've gained 7% total revenue or 16% on their previous portion. I suppose I shouldn't have referred to that as "their half".

Regardless, the way you're portraying the gains here is pretty slanted, specifically in regards to Revenue sharing. Yes, ownership as a whole shares 1.8% more of revenues now, but we aren't talking about ownership as a whole. We're talking Jacobs. While every team benefits from an increased owners share and gets more money because of it, only 10 teams shoulder the load of increased revenue sharing, Boston being one of them. So sure, they gained 7% total revenues but in regards to Jacobs he now kicks in substantially more to revenue sharing.

Put another way, (all assuming 3.3 billion revenue) 231 million dollars equates to about 7.7 million more per team. With increased revenue sharing the top 10 teams will contribute 100 million directly or 10 million per team (assuming this isn't weighted towards the top teams, and I believe it is). 33% of which is new money, so now we're talking 7.7 million gained in owners share less 3.3 million in increased revenue sharing.

And again, this isn't figuring in make whole payments, changes to pension contributions, the other 100 million for revenue sharing, etc...

End of the day, I'd be very very surprised if the top revenue teams stand to make much more under the new CBA then they did under the old... which I believe is exactly what Jacobs says here. Most definitely not enough to justify a lockout that could have potentially done damage to the current revenue stream anyway.

Again, it's fairly obvious this lockout was about the smaller market teams, not guys like Jeremy Jacobs regardless of how justified that would make some feel in regards to their feelings toward him.

Last edited by Kaoz*: 01-21-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote