The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
With Don Fehr leading the out-of-touch with reality millionaire athletes, I have no doubt that the greedy players will blindly follow Fehr into a lockout.
Remember folks, the OWNERS are the business owners ....business owners are supposed to MAKE MONEY, yet many of these owners are losing money, due to crazy salaries that some teams HAVE to take on, just to get to the cap floor. So I have no problem with the owners trying to get a bigger part of the pie.
With Don Fehr leading the out-of-touch with reality millionaire athletes, I have no doubt that the greedy players will blindly follow Fehr into a lockout.
Remember folks, the OWNERS are the business owners ....business owners are supposed to MAKE MONEY, yet many of these owners are losing money, due to crazy salaries that some teams HAVE to take on, just to get to the cap floor. So I have no problem with the owners trying to get a bigger part of the pie.
Well whose bright idea was it to have a cap floor, especially one that is higher than the hurting teams' HRR?
Well whose bright idea was it to have a cap floor, especially one that is higher than the hurting teams' HRR?
Hint: It's not the players.
Seriously though, did/could ANYBODY predict that the NHL's revenues would rise by 50% (or in other words 1 BILLION dollars) in just 7 years after the lockout? Many predicted the NHL's revenues would shrink by alot after losing a whole season. Much of these problems have arisen since the NHL has grown much more than anybody thought they could. A growing business needs to continue to adapt, which is what the NHL/NHLPA is facing now...
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Seriously though, did/could ANYBODY predict that the NHL's revenues would rise by 50% (or in other words 1 BILLION dollars) in just 7 years after the lockout? Many predicted the NHL's revenues would shrink by alot after losing a whole season. Much of these problems have arisen since the NHL has grown much more than anybody thought they could. A growing business needs to continue to adapt, which is what the NHL/NHLPA is facing now...
They built in an adaptive mechanism. If revenues grew, so did the players' share, hence their scale of 54-57% of HRR going to players.
The problem wasn't necessarily that they couldn't predict that HRR would grow and where (although it should have been somewhat apparent). The problem was that they never addressed the core issue--- the revenue gap. Instead of looking at ways to share more money or to 'subsidize' teams that needed time to grow, they figured they could just try to push the affordability index down as far as possible. (Catering to the lowest common denominator.) Of course, the NHLPA couldn't realistically accept a solution that basically allowed all the money that would have gone to players from successful markets to be pocketed instead by the very teams that didn't need any help under either scenario.
So here we are again. The revenue gap still exists, and has widened. The NHL will once again try to take it all off the players instead of growing central revenues and enhancing revenue sharing.
With Don Fehr leading the out-of-touch with reality millionaire athletes, I have no doubt that the greedy players will blindly follow Fehr into a lockout.
Remember folks, the OWNERS are the business owners ....business owners are supposed to MAKE MONEY, yet many of these owners are losing money, due to crazy salaries that some teams HAVE to take on, just to get to the cap floor. So I have no problem with the owners trying to get a bigger part of the pie.
I thought this was the argument in 2004? I thought the cap would fix this?
It didn't?
Get rid of it The NHL does not know how to run it.
They built in an adaptive mechanism. If revenues grew, so did the players' share, hence their scale of 54-57% of HRR going to players.
The problem wasn't necessarily that they couldn't predict that HRR would grow and where (although it should have been somewhat apparent). The problem was that they never addressed the core issue--- the revenue gap. Instead of looking at ways to share more money or to 'subsidize' teams that needed time to grow, they figured they could just try to push the affordability index down as far as possible. (Catering to the lowest common denominator.) Of course, the NHLPA couldn't realistically accept a solution that basically allowed all the money that would have gone to players from successful markets to be pocketed instead by the very teams that didn't need any help under either scenario.
So here we are again. The revenue gap still exists, and has widened. The NHL will once again try to take it all off the players instead of growing central revenues and enhancing revenue sharing.
I agree with this mostly. I agree that the key for the next CBA to work properly is that the owners need to improve revenue sharing. That is the key. I do think that the cap system needs some tweaks, but must be maintained.
I agree that the revenue gap has widened. I think the miscalculation by the NHL was that they thought that the top end markets were pretty much tapped out with regards to revenues, and I think that they thought that any major gains like we are seeing would be the big untapped markets on the lower end of the revenue scale (Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York I) were going to be the ones gaining and driving the overall revenue increase. Therefore the revenue gap would be reduced and the player's share could go up. Instead drastic increase in already strong markets have widened the gap causing many of the current problems.
I am still hopeful that the Phoenix and Atlanta situations have opened EVERYONE's eyes to the point that they understand the status quo will not suffice. I don't care that the NHL or NHLPA screwed up on the last CBA, what we have now is not working.
I am no business expert, but I still think that a soft/hard cap/floor mix is the best solution. Something like a 60million cap soft cap, 68-70 million dollar hard cap. You can spend up to the hard cap, but above the soft cap you are paying dollar for dollar into the revenue sharing program. Then like a 35 hard floor, 43 million dollar soft floor. The soft/hard floors would have to do with eligibility into the revenue sharing program, if you are below 43 you are not eligible for the revenue sharing generated from above soft cap teams. Obviously that is a bare bones proposal, but something like basically allows teams to spend nothing IF THEY NEED, or go over cap and enter additional revenue sharing IF THEY WANT. Obviously there would still be more revenue sharing and lots of other issues, but I think something around this would work.
I agree with this mostly. I agree that the key for the next CBA to work properly is that the owners need to improve revenue sharing. That is the key. I do think that the cap system needs some tweaks, but must be maintained.
I agree that the revenue gap has widened. I think the miscalculation by the NHL was that they thought that the top end markets were pretty much tapped out with regards to revenues, and I think that they thought that any major gains like we are seeing would be the big untapped markets on the lower end of the revenue scale (Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York I) were going to be the ones gaining and driving the overall revenue increase. Therefore the revenue gap would be reduced and the player's share could go up. Instead drastic increase in already strong markets have widened the gap causing many of the current problems.
I am still hopeful that the Phoenix and Atlanta situations have opened EVERYONE's eyes to the point that they understand the status quo will not suffice. I don't care that the NHL or NHLPA screwed up on the last CBA, what we have now is not working.
I am no business expert, but I still think that a soft/hard cap/floor mix is the best solution. Something like a 60million cap soft cap, 68-70 million dollar hard cap. You can spend up to the hard cap, but above the soft cap you are paying dollar for dollar into the revenue sharing program. Then like a 35 hard floor, 43 million dollar soft floor. The soft/hard floors would have to do with eligibility into the revenue sharing program, if you are below 43 you are not eligible for the revenue sharing generated from above soft cap teams. Obviously that is a bare bones proposal, but something like basically allows teams to spend nothing IF THEY NEED, or go over cap and enter additional revenue sharing IF THEY WANT. Obviously there would still be more revenue sharing and lots of other issues, but I think something around this would work.
Raise the Hard cap by 1-2 million and I am behind this. I am not behind the current CBA because all it has done is exacerbate the current problems. Teams are losing boatloads of money, 2 markets have been compromise and a third maybe as well.
Raise the Hard cap by 1-2 million and I am behind this. I am not behind the current CBA because all it has done is exacerbate the current problems. Teams are losing boatloads of money, 2 markets have been compromise and a third maybe as well.
Honestly, my numbers meant nothing. I just threw them out there, it was the concept I was trying to get across . I don't have access to the NHL's books (or even what the NHLPA gets) I am just a random poster, but yeah I think something like this could work. It encourages spending for lower end teams, but also allows bigger teams to spend more if they want, but they MUST enter an additional revenue sharing program. And it still maintains a decent amount of the parity and even playing field that we see which is VITAL to the longterm success, IMO.
I am just hoping that the NHL/NHLPA can work SOMETHING out before next season, I really don't want to lose games next year
Honestly, my numbers meant nothing. I just threw them out there, it was the concept I was trying to get across . I don't have access to the NHL's books (or even what the NHLPA gets) I am just a random poster, but yeah I think something like this could work. It encourages spending for lower end teams, but also allows bigger teams to spend more if they want, but they MUST enter an additional revenue sharing program. And it still maintains a decent amount of the parity and even playing field that we see which is VITAL to the longterm success, IMO.
I am just hoping that the NHL/NHLPA can work SOMETHING out before next season, I really don't want to lose games next year
This definitely seems like the fairest solution (whether it will actually happen or not, who knows). I definitely think there will have to be some give and take between the owners, if there's going to be more robust revenue sharing between rich teams and poor teams, you might have to have an NBA-style amnesty clause for big market teams to dump contracts. but definitely flexibility is good.
Just wondering (apologies if I sound a little naive lol)-but with the announcement that "negotiations" wouldn't start till after the playoffs (I put it in quotes as I think there might be unofficial stuff going on as we speak)-I am thinking we will see at least a delay to the season, and I wonder if the question is more now "how much of the season will we lose?" (My current guess, it's going to go NBA route and not start till Dec or Jan)
Just wondering (apologies if I sound a little naive lol)-but with the announcement that "negotiations" wouldn't start till after the playoffs (I put it in quotes as I think there might be unofficial stuff going on as we speak)-I am thinking we will see at least a delay to the season, and I wonder if the question is more now "how much of the season will we lose?" (My current guess, it's going to go NBA route and not start till Dec or Jan)
But isn't the "refusal of CBA renewal" date during May so there may be no delay to the season even if a CBA isn't signed?
The NHL does not know how to run it.
. I don't have access to the NHL's books (or even what the NHLPA gets) I am just a random poster, but yeah I think something like this could work. It encourages spending for lower end teams, but also allows bigger teams to spend more if they want, but they MUST enter an additional revenue sharing program. And it still maintains a decent amount of the parity and even playing field that we see which is VITAL to the longterm success, IMO.
