View Single Post
Old
01-21-2013, 07:12 PM
  #89
Kaoz*
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
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 $.
So basic math is to ignore a a piece of the equation because you don't know the exact specifics? But only when it suits your purpose apparently, because frankly we are assuming all figures in this discussion including projecting HRR a year out to assume 50% then will be greater then 43% was a year ago.

You'll have us ignore increased revenue sharing, 60 million divided out between 10 teams of which Boston is one because we don't know exactly how it will be divided... interesting premise but sure... why not.

You'll have us ignore increased club contributions to pension plans again because we don't know the specifics? Again, interesting method but I can see how it will suit your purposes here.

PS. Buyouts only cost an owner money if he chooses to buy someone out. There was absolutely zero incentive for Jacobs and other owners to be against buyouts for selfish reasons as you are suggesting here because it doesn't cost them a dime unless they choose to use them and those that are used count against the players share. Not sure I understand your reasoning on that one, but then again I don't understand why we're ignoring the other financial implications of the CBA either. Other then this being a witch hunt of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjohn View Post
Using your numbers 231 million more to owners this year, divided by 30 is $7,700,000 more.

The revenue sharing is up to 200 million, an increase of 50 million from last year. So Bruins will be one of ten teams on the hook for half of that increase. 25 million divided by ten is $2,500,000.

7.7 - 2.5 is 5.2, right?
Maybe now would be a good time to bring up the fact that we're talking about revenues as if they were profits? 7% of revenues equates to an additional 231 million revenue league wide, but that doesn't mean there will be an extra 231 million in profit for owners to share.

Last year (according to Forbes - sorry, best we got) teams as a whole made approx. 250 million profit even though their share of revenue was 1.419 Billion. They brought home about 17% of that total revenue figure. Had their share been 50% instead of 43%, still using the 17% approximation, they would have brought home about 290 million (17% of 1.65 billion), or 40 million extra which equates to an additional 1.3 million in profit assuming an even 30 way split (which of course wouldn't happen).

If you want to break out the uneven split of revenue more, Boston brought in roughly 5% of that total profit (14.2 million of 250 million) last year. Toronto brought in 32% (82 million of 250 million), Rangers brought in 29.5% (74 million of 250 million). etc etc...

Know what 5% (Boston's slice of the profit pie) of 290 million is? 14.5 million. So... 14.3 million to 14.5 million. Jacobs might as well close up shop on all his other ventures with that windfall.

Not exactly 7.7 million each in the end. Of course revenue sharing, pension contributions, etc... all come out of those figures before hand, and it's all just estimation based on past percentages but again, what else are we going to do?

Even after all this discussion I still find it extremely hard to believe Jacobs was behind the lockout in order to better line his own pockets. My math sucks though... soooo...

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote