HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Should there be Revenue Sharing limits?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2012, 04:33 PM
  #26
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Very few, if any, but most importantly the sharing amounts would likely be quite small.... under your scenario.
No, not at all. Teams won't make money at an equal rate and therefore the bottom will still get revenue sharing to get to the midpoint.

Every team making money raises the midpoint/cap/floor. Teams would still be below it unless everyone was tied for #1 in revenue.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 04:47 PM
  #27
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Winnipeg isn't amongst the lower revenue tier grouping that you've chosen to lump them with however, not even close. Small market doesn't equate to small revenue in this specific case.
I didn't say NOW. I said hypothetically, if everyone is flourishing.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 04:54 PM
  #28
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerstuck View Post
What you are saying/proposing is what WOULD HAVE to be done, would the NHL chose to limit cash/years of teams being on Revenue sharing.

But then again, seeing how long NHL is giving a chance to Coyotes (team believed to not have made a single $ of profit since it was moved to Arizona) it's hard to think that would ever work.
I just dont see the point of having teams in the NHL that are constant revenue drains. You have to set limits. At some point the teams need to get off welfare and survive on their own. Any franchises that need years and years of revenue sharing shouldnt be in the league.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 04:58 PM
  #29
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later.

The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.

I have no idea what you can tie revenue sharing to that reflects how well run your team is.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-06-2012 at 05:03 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 05:15 PM
  #30
massivegoonery
Registered User
 
massivegoonery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 11,328
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
I just dont see the point of having teams in the NHL that are constant revenue drains.
The very existence of other teams, regardless of whether they make any money themselves, increases the revenue earned by the top teams.

It would be shortsighted for the owner of the Harlem Globetrotters to come out and say "the Washington Generals make no money on their own, they are a constant revenue drain on our club."

massivegoonery is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 05:20 PM
  #31
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later.

The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.

I have no idea what you can tie revenue sharing to that reflects how well run your team is.
Actually for the last couple of days I was thinking if there was some other metric that could be used for good stewardship, and I could never think of any. its going to have to be revenue or at least rate of change of revenues, it would punish teams at the bottom and at the top.

As bad as the isles have been, lets see how it shakes out in brooklyn. I dont think that it will be the answer to all of their problems but the new arena most likely wont hurt, and its not like they can trade the owner.

If the isles cant make a run of it in one of the worlds most populous sports cities with a brand spanking new arena, then it might be time to re-evaluate the competence of ownership. A bad lease/building can sink a ship no matter how well it is run.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 05:32 PM
  #32
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
A bad lease/building can sink a ship no matter how well it is run.
If that was the only thing holding them back then I'd give them a pass. When you draft, develop and hire poorly, as well as sign terrible, inflating contracts, you deserve to lose money. If you can't hire someone to make your team competitive you should lose money.

I'd tie revenue sharing to wins. If you finish in the top half in points and are still losing money, you qualify for revenue sharing. If you make the playoffs 3 times in 18 years like the Panthers, you shouldn't be getting handouts on a regular basis.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:26 PM
  #33
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,279
vCash: 500
It should be like those rides that say you must be this tall when standing on all of your revenues to play in the nhl. What is that minimum requirement to get a seat at the table?

The NHL did have requirements set out for franchises to continue receiving revenue sharing, just as many fans when designing the system also seem to propose. They cant be a big market and get revenue sharing, and they cant be slacker welfare queens. And it sounds great. Until the CBA is next expiring, and then all these teams are held up as shining examples of struggling markets unable to compete unless the players take a pay cut.

Many are now coming to the conclusion that the linkage they last thought was worth fighting for actually made things worse. And next time we may realize that the reason it gets worse is we keep trying to find the best way to manufacture parity, but like linkage last time, it itself is the problem when you dont have teams on an even enough starting plane to achieve it.

When the Sens came into the league, with the worst expansion draft, and languished in lottery position for half a decade, we were poor, had no chance to compete, and made a profit and survived. Parity is a nice goal, once they have 30 relatively equal teams. It seems to constantly fail though when it is used as a method for getting there.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:41 PM
  #34
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
The very existence of other teams, regardless of whether they make any money themselves, increases the revenue earned by the top teams.

It would be shortsighted for the owner of the Harlem Globetrotters to come out and say "the Washington Generals make no money on their own, they are a constant revenue drain on our club."
No, not true at all. Your example is true because there is only one Washington generals. The league would do just fine if they lost a few markets. Too many anyways, the average fan can't possibly know all the teams and players because they may only see them once a year. It's better to see a team a half dozen or more times per year.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 06:51 PM
  #35
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,066
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Parity is a nice goal, once they have 30 relatively equal teams. It seems to constantly fail though when it is used as a method for getting there.
... yes I agree. The chasm in disparities between the haves & have nots is as broad as it is deep. Mid-range clubs having to step very gingerly across the wire. Left to look for loopholes, cheat sheets to circumvent whatever CBA their working under in order to hopefully insure an at least 2nd or Glory Hallelujah 3rd round run into the playoffs, the difference for many between profit & loss on the season.

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 07:42 PM
  #36
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Asking the question in the title, but being a bit more specific, meaning a Revenue Sharing limit as to how many consecutive years a team can be on the receiving end of Revenue Sharing, and how much money in total any particular team might be shared over a period of time.

I would think that, No, there shouldn't necessarily be a limit as to how many years and how much money a team receives in Revenue Sharing, not if the teams handing out the money are willing to keep handing it out. However, to me it seems counter-productive to maintain a certain team indefinitely if it's never going to earn a profit. Eventually, one would think, it might be better to cut and move on to potentially better pastures.

But then, what if it's the owners and the management of the franchise and the team which is deemed the cause for the franchises failures and economic woes? Is there never anything the League can do to fix such problems and actually give a team and its city a real chance to have some success?
The NBA has an upper limit of 50% of profit that can be put into revenue sharing by any one team. I've used that number here to show how revenue sharing. if equivalent to the NBA, was in the NHL it would help, but only so much, and its a punitive enough tax (when combined with corporate taxes) to dissuade teams from wanting to make too much profit.

And the last thing I want to see is an MLB system where your RS is used simply as profit to a non interested owner.

I'm a big proponent of RS, but it has limited applications in the NHL compared to the other sports, especially NFL and MLB because their massive TV deals evens it all out.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 09:14 PM
  #37
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
At some point the teams need to get off welfare and survive on their own. Any franchises that need years and years of revenue sharing shouldnt be in the league.
Because under the current setup tying payroll to revenue, it is a never-ending cycle of creating more poor teams?

If you simply eliminated revenue sharing, left Darwinism to kill off the weak markets, the middle markets would become the week ones. I can illustrate this using the 2011 revenues with the bottom removed, the new midpoint/cap/floor and you can see how every year, fewer teams will be left alive.

Under the current system, the majority of teams would be better off if we moved Toronto to Sante Fe. That's a problem. That means the SYSTEM is broken and the markets are not necessarily the problem (Some are, but it's two separate issues).

What happens if everyone is healthy and flourishing? The league implemented Revenue sharing in 2006 with 29 teams safely in the payroll range. That money wouldn't disappear, it would simply offset the fact that Raleigh isn't Toronto, Buffalo isn't New York City, and Winnipeg isn't Montreal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later. The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.

I have no idea what you can tie revenue sharing to that reflects how well run your team is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'd tie revenue sharing to wins. If you finish in the top half in points and are still losing money, you qualify for revenue sharing. If you make the playoffs 3 times in 18 years like the Panthers, you shouldn't be getting handouts on a regular basis.
I don't understand your concept of "that deserve it." No one "deserves" help. It's in the best interest of everyone to help. That's why it's there. Apply that to other professions: "Well, they shouldn't get a safety net because they're a horrible tight-rope walker" ???

Certain things are outside of your control. Your arena being old, leases signed in 1985, your last owner buying a soccer team, or running your team into bankruptcy.

Tying revenue sharing to WINS is a horrible idea. It is a a chicken/egg scenario: What is the difference between sucking because you have no money and having no money because you suck?

Revenue sharing is a safety net. It's not bonus money. The owners wanted the protection for the bottom of the league because a strong league helps everyone.

The goal here isn't "pay for play" but "a rising tide raises all boats."

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:38 PM
  #38
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by massivegoonery View Post
The very existence of other teams, regardless of whether they make any money themselves, increases the revenue earned by the top teams.

It would be shortsighted for the owner of the Harlem Globetrotters to come out and say "the Washington Generals make no money on their own, they are a constant revenue drain on our club."
Thats a two team league. Of course they wouldnt want the Generals to leave.

The Rangers wont be hurt if the Blue Jackets leave.

I dont think you understand the issues.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:52 PM
  #39
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
I don't understand your concept of "that deserve it." No one "deserves" help. It's in the best interest of everyone to help. That's why it's there. Apply that to other professions: "Well, they shouldn't get a safety net because they're a horrible tight-rope walker" ???
I don't think it is in the leagues best interest to help a team that isn't helping itself. Propping up teams in emerging markets makes sense, if they're run well eventually they will gain a fan base, add to national TV numbers and make money for themselves and everyone else. That's a good investment.

Giving money to Charles Wang so he can continue to run a mickey mouse operation with little chance of ever being successful is a bad investment.

The Florida panthers have made the playoffs 3 times in 18 years. In any other business that level of incompetence would not lead to prosperity, why should it in the NHL? The salary cap was brought in to help these teams compete but a lot of them haven't, because they are still poorly run.

The Predators, on the other hand, run a tight ship. They draft and develop well, sign good contracts and have had good success. It's not because their building is better than the Islanders, it's because they are run better.

Help the teams that are helping themselves. It applies everywhere in the business world, you don't throw good money at bad money, you invest in well run companies.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-06-2012 at 11:08 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 10:58 PM
  #40
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
Thats a two team league. Of course they wouldnt want the Generals to leave.

The Rangers wont be hurt if the Blue Jackets leave.

I dont think you understand the issues.
That's really short sighted. There is a huge opportunity in the US to grow hockey, even a small piece of the US sports pie is huge to the NHL. That means a lot of money to the Rangers and every other team, in franchise value and TV money. A lot of money. It makes sense for the Rangers etc. to keep those franchises alive as long as they are growing the game. Unfortunately, most of these teams are run poorly and not gaining the traction they should be. I don't think the Canucks would draw well if they'd been as bad as the Blue Jackets. These teams need some sustained success.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-06-2012 at 11:04 PM.
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 11:05 PM
  #41
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Revenue sharing should only go to teams that deserve it, like Nashville. That's a well run business that needs help now but with a realistic shot at making everyone money later.

The Islanders shouldn't get revenue sharing, they're a terribly run business that deserves to lose money.
Nashville deserves more revenue sharing than the Islanders because Nashville has more suites and ad space in their arena?

Because it sounds like you don't know what's been going on for the Islanders for decades (That's not an insult; no one actually talks about it because it's been the same situation for 20 years!) let me lay it out for you.

When the Islanders signed their lease in 1985, they got zero advertising, zero concessions, and zero parking revenues. They did get all their suite revenue, but gave up 15% of their revenue for other tickets. At the time, no big deal. Advertising wasn't allowed on the boards or the ice. Not too many games were on TV so teams didn't bother trying to sell it.

Fast forward to modern sports business: Every other team in the league gets large revenue streams unavailable to the Islanders. Dead last in number of suites and club seats. Can't add LED boards and sell more ads, no space and you don't get that money anyway!

It is a chicken and the egg situation: But the Islanders clearly suck because they have no money. When their lease was not a factor: Sellout city, plenty of money, Fort Neverlose and a dynasty with four Stanley Cups.

Since the day ESPN got the rights to the NHL, and those ad spots brought in revenue, and expansion led to new rinks with more suites? Haven't won a playoff series since 1993. Multiple owners, multiple GMs. That's two decades of sucking under multiple regimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
If that was the only thing holding them back then I'd give them a pass. When you draft, develop and hire poorly, as well as sign terrible, inflating contracts, you deserve to lose money. If you can't hire someone to make your team competitive you should lose money.
(Ok, now I'm getting heated. Sorry.)

Yes, the Islanders are mismanaged and poorly run. Maybe because they have to spend 75% of their HRR on the floor as per the last CBA, they can't afford to pay people like scouts, assistant GMs, etc? Ever think of that?

#1 - DRAFT.
Before the salary floor, the Islanders drafted Roberto Luongo, Tommy Salo, Rick DiPietro; Zdeno Chara, Wade Redden, Darius Kasparaitis, Eric Brewer, Bryan McCabe, Brad Lukowich; Todd Bertuzzi, Ziggy Palffy, JP Dumont (you're welcome!), Mike Rupp, Raffi Torres, Tim Connolly, Taylor Pyatt, Sean Bergenheim.

A little thin up front -- but some bad trades led to other draft picks. Ottawa took Jason Spezza with our pick after the Yashin trade; and if we kept Luongo, we'd have Danny Healtley.

I'd put that up against the drafts of any other franchise in that time frame (1993-2002)

The point here is: Their drafting has gone down since they slashed their scouting/executive budget because they have to pay to the floor, soaking up all their resources.

#2 - Develop.
That list above seemed to have pretty solid NHL careers. If the Islanders suck at developing players, the guys they traded the fastest would have had the best careers. Like Dumont would be better than Palffy (not true), Redden would be better than Chara (not true), Connolly would be better than Bertuzzi (not true), etc.

The Islanders failures in development were (a) Mike Milbury's impatience and (b) the fact that since the floor, the Islanders have rushed most their prospects to the NHL immediately, so their signing bonus money counts against the salary cap; since they don't have enough revenue to pay to the floor.

#3 - Hire poorly.
Who's going to take a job with lesser resources to succeed? Only those who have no business landing the job on merit (like a backup goalie). A talented executive took one look at the situation and bolted for the door. A horribly bad GM stuck around because no one else wanted him. Look at the Oilers. Have they been more successful with Glen Sather, or without him? Who pays their GM more? Edmonton or the Rangers?

#4 - Terrible, inflating contracts Part I (Yashin/Peca)
I'm not sure which ones you mean. We've had THREE big contracts in two decades (Yashin, Peca, DiPietro

First, when no one wants to play for you, you have to overpay. Take a nice long look at the players who've signed free agent deals with the Islanders. They are 34+ years old and had no where else to go; or they were really young minor league free agents, looking for a way into the league. The best player to sign a free agent contract with the Islanders in the last 15 years is Miroslav Satan.

Yashin and Peca held out because they didn't get what they wanted from OTT/BUF. The Islanders not only had trade for their rights, but then pay them a lot to sign and end their holdouts.

Secondly, those contracts didn't inflate jack. Yashin's deal was so outrageous, it ranked him as the 21st highest paid player in the league when he signed it.
Three years later, the market inflated so much that it was the 16th biggest salary. Other contracts didn't explode because of the Yashin deal. And Peca's contract never even rated in the top 25 salaries.

Terrible because those players weren't that good? Sure. But when NO ONE WANTS TO PLAY FOR YOU (because of the arena and because you have a history of sucking), how do you acquire talent? Overpaying.

#5 - Terrible, inflating contracts Part II (DiPietro)
Now here's the crazy contract. First off, his contract doesn't inflate at all. A flat $4.5 million across the board.

Second, what makes that contract bad… FOR THE ISLANDERS? It's a horrible contract for every other team in the league. But there's nothing bad about that contract for the Islanders.
A - We know now that DiPi is brittle and snaps him half when he moves. Really didn't back then.
B - If DiPietro was a franchise goalie, that's a great contract, because we had him for 15 years instead of six; cause someone would offer him more money at the end of a normal contract.
C - While paying a third-string goalie $4.5 million is cap hell for everyone else. We cheat to reach the cap floor. It doesn't prevent us from paying someone else. Not that anyone wants to sign with us anyway.
D - If we gotten a new arena by now and could be spending to the cap, we'd have $2 million more in cap space than if we signed him to a "normal" deal.
E - Once we're in the new building and can spend, the buyout isn't an issue. It's nice and manageable. Small cap-hit, money we can afford.

#6 - "you should lose money."
You said "If you can't hire someone to make your team competitive you should lose money."

Oh, is it that easy? Hell, why didn't Atlanta, Columbus or the Islanders think of that? Or any of the 14 teams who've never won the Cup? Or Toronto, Ottawa, Philadelphia, or anyone else who hasn't won it in a long time?

As I said before, when you have to spend a large percentage of HRR to hit the floor, it doesn't leave much else for things like executives and scouts.

When the Islanders make $63 million in revenues (last), and have a payroll at $37 million (using phantom bonus money to hit the floor), that leaves $26 million to spend on everything else.

The average NHL team spends $44 million in non-player expenses. Even operating at a $8 million loss, they are $10 million behind the league average.

No one here is saying their ownership or management is GOOD. Or even NOT BAD. Just that it's ridiculously hard to win when you're DMFL in revenues.

And that situation exists for the Islanders because of a lease signed in 1985. Blaming their current management for their revenue issues is insane.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
As bad as the isles have been, lets see how it shakes out in brooklyn. I dont think that it will be the answer to all of their problems but the new arena most likely wont hurt, and its not like they can trade the owner.

If the isles cant make a run of it in one of the worlds most populous sports cities with a brand spanking new arena, then it might be time to re-evaluate the competence of ownership. A bad lease/building can sink a ship no matter how well it is run.
On the day of the Brooklyn announcement, one sports economist pointed out the Islanders would have as much as $35 million more per season in Barclays… from suite revenue alone.

Wang may be a horrible owner. But would he have been just as horrible with $35 million more in revenue a year? That buys a lot of scouts, coaches, and execs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
When the Sens came into the league, with the worst expansion draft, and languished in lottery position for half a decade, we were poor, had no chance to compete, and made a profit and survived. Parity is a nice goal, once they have 30 relatively equal teams. It seems to constantly fail though when it is used as a method for getting there.
So, were you for or against contracting the Senators when they went into bankruptcy?


Last edited by KevFu: 11-06-2012 at 11:40 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 11:30 PM
  #42
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't think it is in the leagues best interest to help a team that isn't helping itself. Propping up teams in emerging markets makes sense, if they're run well eventually they will gain a fan base, add to national TV numbers and make money for themselves and everyone else. That's a good investment.

Giving money to Charles Wang so he can continue to run a mickey mouse operation with little chance of ever being successful is a bad investment.

The Predators, on the other hand, run a tight ship. They draft and develop well, sign good contracts and have had good success. It's not because their building is better than the Islanders, it's because they are run better.

Help the teams that are helping themselves.
Sorry, I was busy writing an epic about your previous post.

Let's recap what you're saying.

In 2010-11…
The Predators were good, the Islanders were bad.
The Predators got $12 million from the state and city in subsidy. The Islanders got nothing.
The Predators got $12 to $15 million from the NHL Revenue Sharing. The Islanders got nothing.

The Predators paid their players $51,387,500 in paychecks (not phantom cap dollars via buyouts and bonuses)
The Islanders paid their players $29,727,500 in paychecks (not phantom cap dollars via buyouts and bonuses)

The Predators performed better on the ice.

What does that tell you about the relationship between available money and on-ice success? Your use of the Panthers is fine to argue that they Panthers don't deserve to get revenue sharing. But the Islanders haven't got a single dime of revenue sharing. Sucked before it existed, sucked after it existed. Never got a dime. Changed GMs and owners 4-5 times. The only constant has been their crappy arena and horrible lease (and stagnant politicians in Nassau and Hempstead).

I am by no means trashing the Preds here. (I like the Preds. I'm the guy on the BOH forum that defends non-traditional markets more than anyone. Hell, I even own a Preds t-shirt).

Your argument boils down to:
-- It's really hard to be good without money.
-- If you don't have the money to be good, but get some for free and are good you deserve money.
-- If you don't have the money to be good, but don't get any for free and aren't good, you don't deserve money.

That's circular at best.


Last edited by KevFu: 11-06-2012 at 11:41 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 11:37 PM
  #43
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And that situation exists for the Islanders because of a lease signed in 1985. Blaming their current management for their revenue issues is insane.
I didn't talk about their revenue issues at all, I talked about how poorly run they are. You have a lot of excuses for Charles [mod]. I mean, he hired the backup goalie because he couldn't afford anyone else? Are you serious?

He hired Milbury and he ran it into the ground. That's on Wang. Had they not been terrible all those years because of an incompetent GM, they may be able to generate enough revenue to pay scouts now. You pay for poor hires in any business, you pay more when you keep the bad hire around forever because they are your buddy.

Wang is responsible for how his business is run regardless of the obstacles. His business has been run poorly since the day he bought it.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-07-2012 at 12:21 AM. Reason: ...
Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-06-2012, 11:42 PM
  #44
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,713
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
That's circular at best.
No, it's not. If Wang isn't going to invest in his own business, why should the other owners? So what if he bought a team with a terrible lease? That was a terrible business decision, the kind that loses you lots of money.

I wouldn't buy a stake house and then complain it couldn't make money when all I could afford to serve was hamburgers.

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 12:10 AM
  #45
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I didn't talk about their revenue issues at all, I talked about how poorly run they are.
Does your GM work for free? I thought running a team cost money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
You have a lot of excuses for Charles [mod].
No, I have a lot of experience following the Islanders. We were broke and couldn't afford to compete long before Charles Wang took over. Because of the lease and arena.

Charles Wang is a bad owner at things like: Knowing anything about hockey. The only thing Charles Wang did well: Get us to the end of the lease without the team moving out of the market. No one wanted to own our team except to TRY and develop the land around the arena. That's why the previous owners had to be recruited by the league, including Wang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I mean, he hired the backup goalie because he couldn't afford anyone else? Are you serious?
He hired Neil Smith. Smith quit after 10 days. Then he hired Garth Snow. So yes. I am serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
He hired Milbury and he ran it into the ground. That's on Wang.
Mike Milbury was hired as coach in 1995, named GM in December of 1995. Charles Wang bought the team in 2000.
Not firing Milbury was on Wang. But Wang didn't know anything about hockey and gave him the benefit of the doubt. No one told Wang Milbury sucked because the rest of hockey really liked trading with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Had they not been terrible all those years because of an incompetent GM, they may be able to generate enough revenue to pay scouts.
That is false. Re-read those lease terms.

If every seat was sold out, the Islanders would have $4.5 million more in revenue. Still last in revenue. Still not as much as their operating losses. What else can you do to generate revenue?
-- Sell more advertising? Don't get that money, SMG does.
-- Sell more concessions? Don't get that money, SMG does.
-- Sell more suites? Can't renovate/build the arena without SMG/politician approval. Still waiting on that. It's only been 20 years.
-- Move. Lease prevents them to playing a home game anywhere but the Coliseum (we can't even play regular season games in Europe like other teams have).

All you can do is run out the clock on the lease. We thank Wang for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
His business has been run poorly since the day he bought it.
That's true. It's also true that the Islanders business was run poorly before Wang bought them. Do you get this yet? Wang sucks as an owner. We have him for an owner because NO ONE ELSE WANTED THE TEAM because of the arena/lease situation. There's absolutely nothing about the franchise that hasn't been effected by the lease and arena.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Wang is responsible for how his business is run regardless of the obstacles.
And that is what it is. But not our topic of discussion, here. You think that is a reason to exclude the Islanders from revenue sharing. Is the LEAGUE responsible for the franchises in it after they bring them into the league?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 08:25 AM
  #46
middletoe
Why am I me?
 
middletoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,796
vCash: 500
Here's a scenario that would absolutely drive me nuts if I was an owner.

Let's say I'm the type of owner that can't really afford to take a loss. I've got wealth but it isn't endless. I put in the time and effort to do what I can to have a good team for my fans and make a profit. And I accomplish that to the tune of being a top ten team profit wise.

Now let's say another teams owner puts me to shame financially, and bought his team for a hobby, and he doesn't really need it to make money. And he doesn't to the tune of being a bottom ten team profit wise.

Now because of the revenue sharing deal put in place I basically have to hand over a few million bucks to that owner.

That would be really really hard to take. So as that owner I'd be down for putting a limit on RS... and more if I could.


Last edited by middletoe: 11-07-2012 at 08:50 AM.
middletoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 10:25 AM
  #47
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by middletoe View Post
Here's a scenario that would absolutely drive me nuts if I was an owner.

Let's say I'm the type of owner that can't really afford to take a loss. I've got wealth but it isn't endless. I put in the time and effort to do what I can to have a good team for my fans and make a profit. And I accomplish that to the tune of being a top ten team profit wise.

Now let's say another teams owner puts me to shame financially, and bought his team for a hobby, and he doesn't really need it to make money. And he doesn't to the tune of being a bottom ten team profit wise.

Now because of the revenue sharing deal put in place I basically have to hand over a few million bucks to that owner.

That would be really really hard to take. So as that owner I'd be down for putting a limit on RS... and more if I could.
RS can breed laziness and contempt, just ask MLB fans .....

But it has worked wonderfully in the NFL.


Few things will beat strong marketing. Alas for the NHL though, it probably matters little how much they market, they are always going to have the "have not" cities, short of contraction.

ottawah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 10:45 AM
  #48
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
RS can breed laziness and contempt, just ask MLB fans .....

But it has worked wonderfully in the NFL.


Few things will beat strong marketing. Alas for the NHL though, it probably matters little how much they market, they are always going to have the "have not" cities, short of contraction.
MLB doesn't have a salary floor, the NFL does. MLB also lacks a salary cap.

Essentially, an owner of a low-level MLB team knows that he'll never be able to compete against the big boys on a consistent basis. Every once in a great while, there's a big one-year spike (like the Colorado Rockies or Houston Astros), but outside of that there's just no way to stay competitive. So the owners of teams like Pittsburgh and Kansas City simply take the revenue sharing check and put it into their own pocket. They're not forced to put it back into the team, and even if they were, there's no reason to...they'll simply never compete.

The only small-market team in MLB that's had an actual run of being competitive in the last 20 years is the Cleveland Indians, and that's because they had an almost impossible run of good fortune in drafting, trading, and developing. But a team like that is still always balancing on a razor's edge; one typical trade of their star for a group of prospects that doesn't work out can completely devastate the team for years to come.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 11:16 AM
  #49
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 20,341
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post

The only small-market team in MLB that's had an actual run of being competitive in the last 20 years is the Cleveland Indians, and that's because they had an almost impossible run of good fortune in drafting, trading, and developing. But a team like that is still always balancing on a razor's edge; one typical trade of their star for a group of prospects that doesn't work out can completely devastate the team for years to come.
Oakland, Tampa Bay and San Diego(before their ownership problems) all disagree with you

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-07-2012, 12:04 PM
  #50
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
Oakland, Tampa Bay and San Diego(before their ownership problems) all disagree with you
During the 1990s, San Diego finished above .500 four times, made the playoffs twice, and was 758-799 overall. From 2000-08 (when their ownership problems began), they made the playoffs twice and were 694-765 overall.

This season was the first time since 2006 that the A's finished with an above-.500 mark. Ever since "Moneyball" was written, Oakland basically lost their competitive advantage since other teams started outbidding the A's for the types of players that they were in the market for, leaving them with scraps and guys who were on their way out of the league entirely. In many ways, Frank Thomas was the symbol of the post-"Moneyball" A's....they signed him at a bargain price because he was thought to be done entirely, he had a huge year, and they lost him as a free agent to a team that could simply afford to spend a lot more on him.

Tampa Bay...how quickly we forget the fact that their first 10 years involved 9 finishes in the bottom of the AL East, no playoff appearances, and the best single-season record of 70-91. Years upon years of good drafting got them to a position of being able to contend, and then their top players (Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena) left for free agency.

In the case of Cleveland, they had a run of seven years where they made the playoffs six times (and went 90-72 the year they missed), and had a pair of World Series appearances. Nearly everything went right from drafting, trading, and developing, and then everything fell apart when the economics of baseball forced it to be dismantled.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:36 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.