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.
If this happened, it'll probably turn out like replacement refs in the NFL: be terrible for a little while and then outrage forces end to the lockout(oh wait, no one cares ;-)).
It might encourage some of the lower paid PA to bolt the union, and come back as replacement players...thus breaking the union...maybe?
Personally, I don't like the idea of replacement players, but I do like the idea of a mediator ending this fiasco...then once the deal was made, Bettman and Fehr be given their pink slips...
It is my belief that the revenue sharing in other leagues comes from the revenue generated by the league.
Somewhat, but maybe better put, the amount of revenue generated by the league in the other sports make revenue sharing more palatable.
NFL for example does a great job of sharing revenue, but they have the advantage of having only a 2-1 difference between the bottom revenue team vs the top revenue team. Secondly, they also have a huge TV deal. So why the Cowboys may grumble about writing out a large revenue sharing cheque every year, they amount they get back is still a fair bit larger, so its palatable.
MLB does a 30% local revenues share, but its chalk full of holes ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ing-spree.html ). Again though, they have such a large TV deal it makes it palatable. And to make this deal more palatable to rich teams, they have set up a system whereas teams with money can generally compete every year and those that do not have a tough go at it. They have thrown parity to the wind.
NBA does an OK job at revenue sharing, mostly harmed by a limited TV deal (900M a year). Again, they have thrown parity out the door though to placate the higher spending teams that now pay a luxury tax.
All in all with league revenues, I think probably only the LA Lakers, maybe the NY yankees, actually pay more into revenue sharing than they get out in all the other three leagues.
So ultimately the lack of a huge TV deal hampers revenue sharing, but more could be accomplished if the league was willing to drop parity. Lets face it, if you ask 2 or 3 teams to give up a huge chunk of money, they want something for it, and that means being able to buy their way into competitiveness. Its not a fun choice.
I've been a proponent of first settling on a revenue split, figuring out the savings, and setting up a revenue sharing plan so that the richest team (TO) breaks even on the deal. What they lose in RS, they get back in player salaries. The further down the revenue list you are, the more you get back compared to what you put in. That ends up targeting the teams needing it most, while not costing the richest teams a cent difference from the last year. That has to be palatable to the owners.
For example, say they can decide on a 50/50 split. I think revenues were projected at 110M per team this year. a 50/50 split would save teams 9M this year. So set the revenue sharing at 10% of local revenues. Leafs put in 20M in the pot on one end. Bottom end NYI put in 6.5M. Overall Total pot is 300M. Each team gets 10M back. Toronto basically pays 20M in revenue sharing, gets back 19M (9 in reduced salaries, 10 in revenue sharing). Palatable. NYI pay 6.5M, get back 17M (7M savings on salaries as they do not spend to cap) for a 10.5M gain.
I cannot see how that system is not palatable to all teams. It directs any savings in player salaries t the needier teams, not to profits on the larger teams. The 50/50 split the players may argue about, but revenue sharing goes down if the players percentage goes up, so they could only go so high to make it work.
It is my belief that the revenue sharing in other leagues comes from the revenue generated by the league. For example the national TV money. Since the league generated revenue is so low, the NHL would have to try and get the locally generated money from some teams. Seems more difficult to do.
It's been posted elsewhere but I believe both MLB & NFL also share portions of gate receipts. If there were the will at NHL HQ to share more revenue, more revenue would be shared. There simply isn't, and the PA is right to call the owners out on it. Sadly I believe the NHL is just not going to budge on this point - they are out for their pound of flesh from the PA and won't settle for anything less. Any cries the league makes about the plight of the smaller teams is a smokescreen; the hardliners are driving this thing IMO.
It's been posted elsewhere but I believe both MLB & NFL also share portions of gate receipts. If there were the will at NHL HQ to share more revenue, more revenue would be shared. There simply isn't, and the PA is right to call the owners out on it. Sadly I believe the NHL is just not going to budge on this point - they are out for their pound of flesh from the PA and won't settle for anything less. Any cries the league makes about the plight of the smaller teams is a smokescreen; the hardliners are driving this thing IMO.
The problem is there is only so much money to share. It works in MLB and the NFL due to the huge TV deals. To solve the problem in the NHL would require revenue sharing that would be in the range of an 80% tax on profits from the large teams. At that point they would quite likely just lower ticket prices until they paid little tax.
If the NHL did the NBA revenue sharing plan to the letter it would add only 4M to the lowest revenue teams bottom line. 4M is quite simply not close to enough to solve this issue.
It's been posted elsewhere but I believe both MLB & NFL also share portions of gate receipts. If there were the will at NHL HQ to share more revenue, more revenue would be shared. There simply isn't, and the PA is right to call the owners out on it. Sadly I believe the NHL is just not going to budge on this point - they are out for their pound of flesh from the PA and won't settle for anything less. Any cries the league makes about the plight of the smaller teams is a smokescreen; the hardliners are driving this thing IMO.
This is it exactly. The owners who are calling the shots want a subservient PA. This lockout could last longer than 1 season.
If the owners want to make a mockery of their own hockey product, then sure, go ahead.
In 1987, the NFL fielded teams of replacement players. Each week that went by, more and more players (prominent ones) crossed the picket lines to play.
And that was with a strike, when it's supposed to be all about solidarity.
The problem is there is only so much money to share. It works in MLB and the NFL due to the huge TV deals. To solve the problem in the NHL would require revenue sharing that would be in the range of an 80% tax on profits from the large teams. At that point they would quite likely just lower ticket prices until they paid little tax.
The NFL TV deal is split 32 ways. We all know this. The NHL could do this as well, and contrary to popular belief, the total value of all TV deals (national + local) is actually quite significant. There's no rule saying you can only split national TV deals. Have the Leafs cough up 29/30 of their local TV deal (and have every other team do the same) and then they can keep every penny of their ticket sales for all I care.
The notion that the NHL "can't" do big time revenue sharing is a myth. You can't tell me TV rights to the Dallas Cowboys are worth the same as TV rights to the Jacksonville Jaguars, but both those teams get the exact same amount. Hockey could do that too, if they wanted to. If the Florida Panthers hauled in the same TV revenue that the Leafs did we wouldn't have to worry about dying southern US markets any more, would we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee
In 1987, the NFL fielded teams of replacement players. Each week that went by, more and more players (prominent ones) crossed the picket lines to play.
And that was with a strike, when it's supposed to be all about solidarity.
In 1995 the MLB tried to bring in replacement players after the players strike cancelled the World Series in 1994. How did that work out for the owners? Here's a hint - the courts wouldn't allow it.
In 1995 the MLB tried to bring in replacement players after the players strike cancelled the World Series in 1994. How did that work out for the owners? Here's a hint - the courts wouldn't allow it.
That's a pretty dramatic oversimplifying of events. MLB owners approved a salary cap and other dramatic changes, then decided to spring that and almost immediately declare an impasse (unilaterally imposing that as the CBA). The idea of an impasse and unilateral imposition had to do with talks breaking down when good faith negotiations have been at least attempted by ownership, and the manner in which it was done didn't pass that test.
That's not the situation here. The NHL has at least made overtures and presented deals, while the PA is sitting around doing nothing.
Never-mind breaking the NHLPA. If the NHL brought in replacement players they could break any relationship they have left with the fans, because all I know is if the NHL was to try and bring in replacement players AND keep charging me the same to watch that hockey... I'm outta there for good. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
replacement players better = replacement prices or it will = NO SALE
Since the NHLPA is locked out rather than on strike, the NHL would have to jump through considerably more hoops in order to use replacement players: approval from the NLRB, possible legal issues with scabs being used primarily for anti-labor activities rather than for a primarily economic purpose, etc.
Wouldnt it be for economic purposes though? If a company can state that the union is hurting the companys ability to remain economically viable, wouldn’t there be some sort of recourse?
It still baffles me how in this day and age that unions hold this much power. Its like using an old out-dated law and applying it in a time where its not relevant anymore.
Never-mind breaking the NHLPA. If the NHL brought in replacement players they could break any relationship they have left with the fans, because all I know is if the NHL was to try and bring in replacement players AND keep charging me the same to watch that hockey... I'm outta there for good. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
replacement players better = replacement prices or it will = NO SALE
Replacement players would be a death knell for the NHL. All the good players would go else where and a rival league would demolish them in short time.
This isn't like the NFL where there is virtually no competition
Wouldnt it be for economic purposes though? If a company can state that the union is hurting the companys ability to remain economically viable, wouldn’t there be some sort of recourse?
It still baffles me how in this day and age that unions hold this much power. Its like using an old out-dated law and applying it in a time where its not relevant anymore.
LOL
There's no contract!!! The Owners LOCKED THE PLAYERS OUT.
Unions have power>
It baffles me that to this day that people have such a twisted view of reality.
Do you think the owners should be able to go in and rewrite all their contracts down by 25 percent without consent of the players???
Pie in the sky stuff that would go over about as well as the NFL replacement refs. Maybe worse. There simply aren't 600 guys worth watching that aren't under contract in other leagues or locked out by this one.
Pie in the sky stuff that would go over about as well as the NFL replacement refs. Maybe worse. There simply aren't 600 guys worth watching that aren't under contract in other leagues or locked out by this one.
In any realistic replacement payer scenario (impasse, imposed CBA, lifted lockout, NHLPA strike) the current players would not be locked out and would be free to cross any virtual picket lines and play.
Never-mind breaking the NHLPA. If the NHL brought in replacement players they could break any relationship they have left with the fans, because all I know is if the NHL was to try and bring in replacement players AND keep charging me the same to watch that hockey... I'm outta there for good. And I'm sure I'm not alone.
replacement players better = replacement prices or it will = NO SALE
Yeah, but then... I basically just watch the NHL on TV. If I splurge for a game, it's really a drop in the ocean compared to the corporate tickets, bequeathed generational season ticket holders, schmooze-festers, fans who are just in the arena because it's the big arena and place to be and have a good time, who I perceive are all not really fans to the extent I am... ? I guess maybe that situation is a little different in some markets compared to others. But to me, I don't really care what the ticket prices are... I'd follow the Habs, with or without replacement players... on TV and in the media, basically the same as before.
I can't imagine they'd have the gall to charge the same prices, though. At least not at first. But then why would they need to? Presumably they would start off paying the replacement players "peanuts"... basically current league minimum salary under an imposed continuance of the prior CBA...? 25 players at $500k-ish is like an 70% reduction in their payrolls or so... Surely they can fold a ticket price reduction into the scenario and still come out ahead...?
I'm not an attorney but I'm pretty certain there can't be a lockout and replacement players. I believe they can end the lockout without negotiating a new CBA and if the NHLPA decides to strike, then replacement players would be an option.
I also doubt the owners want to eliminate the NHLPA because that opens up a lot of new problems that I can't imagine they want.
Frankly I think the whole system is broken. Prices are artificially inflated. The players are paid way beyond what I think is reasonable. Fans in big markets want to exploit their financial advantages, yet often those same fans support the NHLPA and the demands for a much higher rate of revenue redistribution.
My take make a decision- use a system like the NFL's that requires all broadcast revenues are assigned to the League and then distributed in equal share to all teams. Give the visiting team 40% of the gate like the NBA and MLB. Keep the cap and negotiate a deal.
I lieu of that approach, keep revenue distribution as it is. Contract down to the 8 teams that make big money (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Philadelphia, New York Rangers, Boston, Chicago and Detroit) and have a nice life.
LOL
There's no contract!!! The Owners LOCKED THE PLAYERS OUT.
Unions have power>
It baffles me that to this day that people have such a twisted view of reality.
Do you think the owners should be able to go in and rewrite all their contracts down by 25 percent without consent of the players???
If a business is losing money in which the majority of the costs are directly paid to the employees, and the employees are a union that will not allow those costs to be lowered, there should be a recourse.
If a business is losing money in which the majority of the costs are directly paid to the employees, and the employees are a union that will not allow those costs to be lowered, there should be a recourse.
Are the Leafs losing money now?
If they aren't, why should MLSE roll-back player contracts by 24% and cut payroll on an ongoing basis?
I think the Leafs, and many other teams, and the NHL as a whole, is actually making a lot of money.
Your premise is faulty; the NHL is not losing money.
If a business is losing money in which the majority of the costs are directly paid to the employees, and the employees are a union that will not allow those costs to be lowered, there should be a recourse.
The business isn't losing money, the profit from the money making teams was greater then the losses by the money losing teams so if everything was shared they all would have profited.
I guess maybe that situation is a little different in some markets compared to others. But to me, I don't really care what the ticket prices are... I'd follow the Habs, with or without replacement players... on TV and in the media, basically the same as before.
