Jeremy Jacobs is angry about lockout
View Single Post
01-21-2013, 03:12 PM
Over the volcano
Join Date: Mar 2006
Originally Posted by
Boston's middle of the pack, consistently around #5. 10 million is a best guess based on the average. Not much else you can do in that regard until the actual number comes out. It's less disingenuous then using the statement "ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves" in order to show Jacobs made a killing off the CBA. You're completely negating the additional costs incurred, and they are significant to high revenue teams, in order to push
As for how much of that is new money if you have a better way to figure it out have at 'er. The total increased 33%, therefore the contributions of each of the teams who contribute money to it should also increase similarly.
Regardless, unless you choose to ignore the additional costs of the new CBA (which some seem to be doing) you'd have a hard time making the case that Jacobs is going to profit significantly off the new CBA. As I started off saying, increasing owners share from 43% to 50% isn't that big a deal in the end to team owners like Jacobs. Certainly not enough to justify potentially damaging the revenue stream with a lockout.
Conspiracies are fun and all but it's pretty easy to see this lockout was about the smaller market teams. Increased owner share, increased revenue sharing, contract and variance limits... it all helps smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the player buyouts the players were demanding because it didn't help smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the transition to 50/50 to take two years because it didn't help the smaller markets.
There is no conspiracy theory it's just basic math. You're making up the numbers you want on revenue sharing to put Boston where you want them. For example- you assume ownership's 7% increase in hrr will be split evenly among 30 teams but that the 1.8% that goes to revenue sharing will come disproportionally out of jj because Boston is "somewhere in the top five" of league revenues.
It is not disingenuous to say "they gained 7% in return for sharing 1.8% of it" because both are tied to a teams revenue. If Boston has to pay more of the 1.8 it's because they pull more of the 7.
-oh , and they weren't against the buyouts and transition to 50/50 because they hurt the smaller teams- they were against them because it cost them $.
Over the volcano
View Public Profile
Over the volcano's albums
Find More Posts by Over the volcano