View Single Post
Old
01-22-2013, 12:37 AM
  #93
bigbadjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
well, i'm not an accountant, i don't play one on tv and i didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night, but... i'm not equating revenue with profits.

there are revenues and expenditures. by slicing the revenue pie up to take 7% back from players, the owners increased their revenues.

the increase in revenue sharing is an expenditure. in this case, the increase in that expenditure is less than the increase in revenue. a simple concept, i know you grasp.

profit is another story entirely and can be hidden in various ways, or at least left off the books. that's what accountants and tax lawyers are for.

the CBA was about the smaller struggling markets. the owners and players both want the teams to stay. someone was going to have to pay for that. the owners just didn't to be that someone, so they wanted to take back more from the players. all things are not equal from last year to this. the "solution" to the problem with the smaller markets was going to cost money. it came from the players, not the owners. that's a win for the owners.

i'd have preferred they take a look at their current revenue sharing and change the model to something that approaches the other professional sports they were so fond of comparing the revenue split with. the solution they came up with doesn't really solve the problem. and i'd like to think that deciding to lockout the players and put everyone through this nonsense once again, they would have actually solved the problem.

of course the problem with a more robust revenue sharing scheme is those who generate the revenue are reluctant to share it equally with those who do not. Mr. Jacobs is one of those who generates revenue. i'm just guessing here, but i'm pretty certain he's also one of those unlikely to be willing to share it.

i look forward to him stepping down from his "leadership" role within the NHL.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz;58043661
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 [B
revenue[/B] 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...

bigbadjohn is offline   Reply With Quote