HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
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
11-08-2012, 09:49 PM
  #76
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
I think people need to realize that revenue sharing is not the solution to any of these problems.

The issue is how do you get people in the failing markets to pay top dollar to attend hockey games, and how do you get people to watch those games on TV so the teams can get big local TV contracts. Thats the only way to make these franchises viable.

I dont see how stealing money from successful teams accomplishes any of that.

Phoenix has been a playoff team for 3 straight years and they have no fans. Tampa Bay won the Cup within the last ten years and they dont have a steady fanbase. The Panthers were a good team that made a playoff run and they were basically giving away tickets. None of these teams do exceptionally well in their local markets on TV. So how does getting a few extra bucks help them long term? Answer...it doesnt.

Let the teams run their business free of restraints. Some teams will be the Royals, but still survive. Some teams will fail and will move, but guess what? Those teams will fail and move without revenue sharing and with a cap.
I think people need to realize the people that live in markets where there are mulitple entertainment choices other than NHL hockey will never pay top dollar for a regular season NHL game. Since these markets are a much larger percentage than other NHL markets that pay top dollar, revenue sharing along with a lower percentage of revenue going to the players IS the answer.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 09:51 PM
  #77
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Let me start by saying, excuse me, Dojji, if there's some point you're making that I'm not getting. Now ok, of course there is always going to be a team at the bottom, that's obvious; if one team succeeds in moving up from the bottom then it gets replaced by another, and as you say, up goes the price of being competitive. But if I can take this back now to the OP, my question was/is: If one or two particular teams are consistently always the bottom one or two, over a long stretch of time, then shouldn't it be asked: What economic benefit are those one or two teams doing for the League since they are always the recipients of the greatest amount of Revenue Sharing. If those teams can move up ocassionally and not always be the teams syphoning off from the rest then fine.

As long as there is Revenue Sharing, and I agree with the system that includes it, then there's always going to be these or those teams at the bottom end receiving that revenue. But if it's forever being the same teams, then what economic benefit are those teams doing for the League, I suppose, other than taking that bottom spot where perhaps other teams are happy not to be?
I agree with you in theory, but when you have a system that is set up such that some teams are always underwater by definition, revenue sharing becomes the best (only) reasonable solution to counter the problem even when the situation happens to be that it's generally the same teams.

The way things work right now it is LITERALLY impossible for all teams to break even. Punishing teams that do not break even in a situation where it's literally impossible for a rising tide to float all boats is absurd. There's imposing reasonable wards against utter incompetence, and then there's making success impossible. Using a limit on RS as an incompetence tax is the latter.

If the effect of moving any one team into prosperous circumstances is that someone else joins the list of perennial fall guys and the price of competitiveness goes up to match, you can't impose a series of austerity-based consequences on a market for failing to be competitive when the nature of the cap floor makes it impossible for that team to BE competitive. The only other possible solution is to find a way to get literally every team to grow as fast and be as financially strong as Toronto, and that's a ridiculous prospect. Even the other Canadian teams and the big US markets aren't going to accomplish that.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 10:17 PM
  #78
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
I think people need to realize the people that live in markets where there are mulitple entertainment choices other than NHL hockey will never pay top dollar for a regular season NHL game. Since these markets are a much larger percentage than other NHL markets that pay top dollar, revenue sharing along with a lower percentage of revenue going to the players IS the answer.
If you cant generate enough money on your own, you shouldnt be in the league. Unless the owner is okay with losing money and wants to hang on for an increase in franchise value or something.

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 10:57 PM
  #79
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
I feel that there should be some revenue sharing but not to the extent that many here are promoting. Only enough to get them through tough times on a short term basis. This lockout basic theme was the disparity between franchises. McDonalds' franchises dont share revenue but this is a slightly different market obviously. The only practical long term solution is to improve the product in these markets enough so that what revenue sharing exists will bring them close to breakeven at least.

DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-08-2012, 11:38 PM
  #80
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
When you put a terrible product on the ice for 20 years, you're going to lose money. If your owner cannot fund an NHL hockey team I feel bad for you, but that shouldn't qualify him for revenue sharing. Run your business bad, lose money, that's not "novice", that's the way the world works. Then there would be no incentive for those teams to run a better business.
Revenue sharing isn't bonus money. It isn't competitive balance adjustment. Give out a Broke GM of the Year Award if you want to reward teams for being smart with little resources.

What is the real purpose of revenue sharing? It isn't to "bail out" teams that are mismanaged. It's to compensate teams that had to SLASH EXPENSES to increase their payrolls to the floor so we could play hockey again with a CBA.

12 teams can't afford the floor if they only spend the 57% of HRR the owners agreed was the max they could afford collectively to give to the players. The average non-player expense for an NHL team in 2010-11 was $44 million. The floor was $43.4 million. Before the floor existed, the minimum payroll for an NHL team was $11 million.

Anyone making under $87 million in revenue had to cut expenses because they now have to spend $33 million more in player salaries to make the NHLPA happy.

The concept of "fair" or "deserve" doesn't come into play. Revenue sharing is really nothing more than the rich owners buying a YES VOTE on a CBA from those for whom the agreement does NOT work. It is the owners who can afford it saying "Just vote yes and I'll cover you, because we have to play hockey again."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
There is not anywhere close to enough incentive to actually pocket revenue sharing checks without improving the team on the ice. It can happen in MLB, NFL, and NBA simply because of the monstrous TV contracts, but in the NHL, there's still too heavy of a reliance on gate revenue to make this "take the money and run" scenario likely.

The NHL is not a "normal business" atmosphere. No North American closed professional league is a "normal business atmosphere". The markets are too spread out, and there's an emotional investment that precludes the idea of simply going to the best. If a plastic extruder closes, others who buy plastics from that now-closed plant are simply going to buy from elsewhere. If an NHL team goes away, there is no guarantee that those fans are going to follow another team, or ever follow another one even if it comes back. Sports is a luxury item.
Exactly.

There will always be an incentive to improve. You don't get the money required to buy a team unless you're a competitive person. And sports is competition. The incentive will be to MAKE MONEY rather than simply not lose it.

The other VERY SIGNIFICANT fact here is that:
A - The NHL expanded into new markets to grow their fan base.
B - How do teams get fans to the stadium? Even good teams utilize marketing departments.
C - So when the CBA mandates payroll minimums more than teams can afford, who's getting their budget cut? Marketing. There's very little other places to cut costs.

Basically, league-mandated salary floors are working against the core mission of expanding into these markets in the first place.

Revenue sharing accounts for LEAGUE MANDATED expenses, and restoring a budget item that expense cuts in order to accomplish what the owners wanted when they added those teams.

How about we eliminate revenue sharing and individual team marketing? Each team has a marketing staff hired by the NHL, paid by the NHL, and works to grow the game in each market. To pay for it, every team pays 10% of their HRR into a marketing fund. Is that "unfair" ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Maybe the owners shouldn't hand out franchises like candy.

Sorry, you guys took the money. If the owner of a team wants to continue in his current location, you're stuck with that team being there until the owner wants to sell or re-locate.
#1 - What's done is done.
#2 - Having franchises fold or relocate is bad for everyone.
#3 - "You guys took the money" so, isn't the blame for bad markets existing is the BOG of all the pre-existing teams? Why shouldn't they bear some of the burden for their mistakes?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:10 AM
  #81
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
there is always going to be a team at the bottom, that's obvious; if one team succeeds in moving up from the bottom then it gets replaced by another, and as you say, up goes the price of being competitive. But if I can take this back now to the OP, my question was/is: If one or two particular teams are consistently always the bottom one or two, over a long stretch of time, then shouldn't it be asked: What economic benefit are those one or two teams doing for the League since they are always the recipients of the greatest amount of Revenue Sharing. If those teams can move up ocassionally and not always be the teams syphoning off from the rest then fine.

As long as there is Revenue Sharing, and I agree with the system that includes it, then there's always going to be these or those teams at the bottom end receiving that revenue. But if it's forever being the same teams, then what economic benefit are those teams doing for the League, I suppose, other than taking that bottom spot where perhaps other teams are happy not to be?
What I don't understand is why people are upset about the same teams getting revenue sharing over and over. Why is there outrage?

Let's say you have an NHL where every team plays majestic hockey, every team in the league is competitive, even the bad teams have 80 points, no one's eliminated until the final week, every seat in every rink is sold. Every team is making eight-figure profits. The sport is more popular than ever. That is perfection for the National Hockey League.

Are teams going to bring in equal revenue? No. Are teams going to increase revenues at an equal rate? No.

What KINDS of markets will bring in the most money? Those in large population centers with long hockey traditions, and little competition of sports teams in their market.
What KINDS of markets will bring in the least amount of money? Those in smaller population centers, with a short hockey tradition and lots of competitors for sports entertainment dollars.

Even in the IDEAL situation for the NHL, not every market is Toronto or New York and you do need revenue sharing to balance that out. The talk of the "fairness" revenue sharing is absurd.

The schedule is unbalanced. It's not "fair" that a 9th place team in one conference might be better than an 8th place team in the other. Or a division champion with the seventh highest point total in their conference gets the three seed.
The alignment isn't balanced. It's not "fair" that travel and TV times are better for Philly than for Phoenix, Colorado, Dallas, Vancouver, etc.

The goal has never been fairness, the goal has always been the greater good for the greater number of franchises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
I think people need to realize that revenue sharing is not the solution to any of these problems.

The issue is how do you get people in the failing markets to pay top dollar to attend hockey games, and how do you get people to watch those games on TV so the teams can get big local TV contracts. Thats the only way to make these franchises viable.

I dont see how stealing money from successful teams accomplishes any of that.

Let the teams run their business free of restraints. Some teams will be the Royals, but still survive. Some teams will fail and will move, but guess what? Those teams will fail and move without revenue sharing and with a cap.
The Royals get a ton of revenue sharing. MLB shares a much higher percentage of local revenues than the NHL does. Like, 7 times as much!

You said it yourself: "The issue is how do you get people in the failing markets to pay top dollar to attend hockey games, and how do you get people to watch those games on TV so the teams can get big local TV contracts."

But that doesn't just apply to LOCAL TV deals. It also applies to LEAGUE WIDE national TV contracts, and LEAGUE WIDE popularity. What makes the NHL the most popular? Is it in the best interest of TOR, NYR, MON, PHI, BOS, CHI, and VAN to have fewer people on the continent care about hockey?

Hell no. That's why they thought adding teams in large population centers like Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Anaheim, the Bay Area, etc was a good idea in the first place.

How does pulling the support system SOLVE that issue? Going to a "Survival of the fittest" model is simply washing your hands and saying "screw it, it can't be fixed." And that would be HORRIBLE for the league.

What happens if they pull the plug? What are the headlines:
"NHL's Southern Experiment A Complete Failure."
"People Don't Care About Hockey."
"NHL Goes Back To Being A Niche Sport."
"Big Four Down To Big Three."

And then, the teams remaining in the league who are now middle class, they become lower class. And since revenues don't grow equally, THEY can't compete. Super.


We're arguing over things that no one in the NHL really wants. We're all frustrated there's no hockey and scapegoating. It really doesn't affect any of us if the rich teams give the small teams money. Owners aren't gonna slash ticket prices. Prices aren't $200 in Toronto because the Leafs have to cut a revenue sharing check (less than $4 of that ticket goes towards revenue sharing). Tickets are $200 in Toronto because Leafs fans will pay it.

The money could help grow the game in other cities, or it could help some one's wallet get fatter.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:14 AM
  #82
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What I don't understand is why people are upset about the same teams getting revenue sharing over and over. Why is there outrage?

Let's say you have an NHL where every team plays majestic hockey, every team in the league is competitive, even the bad teams have 80 points, no one's eliminated until the final week, every seat in every rink is sold. Every team is making eight-figure profits. The sport is more popular than ever. That is perfection for the National Hockey League.

Are teams going to bring in equal revenue? No. Are teams going to increase revenues at an equal rate? No.

What KINDS of markets will bring in the most money? Those in large population centers with long hockey traditions, and little competition of sports teams in their market.
What KINDS of markets will bring in the least amount of money? Those in smaller population centers, with a short hockey tradition and lots of competitors for sports entertainment dollars.

Even in the IDEAL situation for the NHL, not every market is Toronto or New York and you do need revenue sharing to balance that out. The talk of the "fairness" revenue sharing is absurd.
I assume that you weren't exactly directing the "outrage" comment at me; because I have no "outrage" about the matter, and I think you'd know that very well from the content of my posts over the years. What I've been asking/commenting about in the thread is the logic for the League of having a certain set of teams that are always at the receiving end of Revenue Sharing. But as has been pointed out in certain posts made in the thread, the system in place automatically means that there are always going to be teams receiving Revenue Sharing, it's just the dynamic of how the NHL's Salary Cap system is structured. And I suppose that for those teams handing out the Revenue Shares, what difference does it make which teams are receiving those $ amounts. So fine, perhaps it shouldn't matter if there's a certain number of teams that are always at the receiving end. Ultimately, I did say in the OP that if the League isn't bothered by that, why should any of us think of it as a problem.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:57 AM
  #83
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
The NHL is not a "normal business" atmosphere. No North American closed professional league is a "normal business atmosphere". The markets are too spread out, and there's an emotional investment that precludes the idea of simply going to the best. If a plastic extruder closes, others who buy plastics from that now-closed plant are simply going to buy from elsewhere. If an NHL team goes away, there is no guarantee that those fans are going to follow another team, or ever follow another one even if it comes back. Sports is a luxury item.
It's still a business and I think you should have to run any business well to make money. That makes sense, doesn't it?

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:00 AM
  #84
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What I don't understand is why people are upset about the same teams getting revenue sharing over and over. Why is there outrage?
Because I don't want my money going to your owner so he can piss it away?

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:34 AM
  #85
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I assume that you weren't exactly directing the "outrage" comment at me; because I have no "outrage" about the matter, and I think you'd know that very well from the content of my posts over the years. What I've been asking/commenting about in the thread is the logic for the League of having a certain set of teams that are always at the receiving end of Revenue Sharing. But as has been pointed out in certain posts made in the thread, the system in place automatically means that there are always going to be teams receiving Revenue Sharing, it's just the dynamic of how the NHL's Salary Cap system is structured. And I suppose that for those teams handing out the Revenue Shares, what difference does it make which teams are receiving those $ amounts. So fine, perhaps it shouldn't matter if there's a certain number of teams that are always at the receiving end. Ultimately, I did say in the OP that if the League isn't bothered by that, why should any of us think of it as a problem.
No, of course not directed at you ("outrage" comment).

To me, having restrictions on who can get revenue sharing is nothing more than spite towards an owner (the current rules, for example). So what if it's the same teams? If everything was perfect in the NHL financially, you'd have the same teams getting revenue sharing and it would simply be offsetting market/arena size discrepancies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Because I don't want my money going to your owner so he can piss it away?
Oh, which franchise do you own? And why are you posting on here instead of negotiating? Get something done!

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:29 PM
  #86
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
If you cant generate enough money on your own, you shouldnt be in the league. Unless the owner is okay with losing money and wants to hang on for an increase in franchise value or something.
Now that we have the emotional response out of the way... have you ever looked at how the system is setup? The cap is based on the average revenue. That means that whomever is at the bottom will eventually be pushed out - regardless of the team. You could have a 3 team league (Toronto, New York Rangers, Montreal), and if salaries were just based on those 3 teams, eventually NY would have to receive RS, or they'd be gone. Those lower team's revenue is actually slowing the cap's growth. Remove them (or increase their revenue) and the cap goes up.

If you want a model where no one needs RS, then ask to go back to the pre-cap days where each team could spend as much or as little as they wanted. But with a cap floor that dictates what teams MUST spend, then having RS to assist them to get to the floor is also required. Remember, Toronto, Montreal, etc all make millions each time they play these other teams.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 07:43 PM
  #87
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
I you need revenue sharing, your team cap should be the league floor.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:23 PM
  #88
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's still a business and I think you should have to run any business well to make money. That makes sense, doesn't it?
Yes, but when you have no internal control over your player costs (cap floor), that really limits your ability to have a well run business. You're now taking funds from other depts (scouts, advertizing, etc) to cover those player costs, which in turn affects other aspects of your team.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 01:41 PM
  #89
thrashniac
Registered User
 
thrashniac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 11
vCash: 500
[/B][/B]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
In terms of revenue, sure. But not in terms of being competitive. The Thrashers went from a bad joke to being competitive because they went from being run poorly to being well run.

Revenue sharing shouldn't be seen as welfare, it should be an investment by other teams in the future of that franchise. Give now to get later. Teams that are running themselves into the ground shouldn't qualify.

The veracity of the historical record, requires me to try and refute this statement. The words "Thrashers" and "well-run" should never be used in the same sentence, particularly after the Stan Kasten era.

Turner's organization quickly determined that the Thrashers, and all sports business (Braves and Hawks included) for that matter, were non-core businesses and operated them only until they could be sold.

Then came the real-life "Major League" owners, A$G, led by Bruce "the AJCs out to get me" and Michael "cry me a river of crocodile tears" Gearon, Jr. who admitted under oath in federal court, they intended to sell the Thrashers from day one, never wanting to own them but being forced by Turner to buy them as part of a package deal for all the sports properties.

The best proof I can offer is that any hockey franchise that keeps Don Waddell as GM (albeit he is a very affable, stand-up, anybody can talk to me guy) as long as the Thrashers did, has no interest in winning.

Even though A$G's Gearon, Jr publicly stated the goal of winning the Stanley Cup, their operations never gave any credence to that statement at all - it was a bald-faced lie directly from the ice to the fan base.

thrashniac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 04:05 PM
  #90
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,384
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?
Yes there should be revenue sharing limits, but not in the sense of receiving it. All teams should receive revenue sharing. I would propose:

All media rights fees go into revenue sharing.
50% of all gate receipts go into revenue sharing

Teams keep all local marketing and promotions fees.

All of the revenue sharing funds are distributed equally to all teams.

TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:54 PM
  #91
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
The money could help grow the game in other cities, or it could help some one's wallet get fatter.
I think the leafs and the habs have zero problem giving teams a helping hand in the name of league wide stability. But what if ( as many believe )the teams that are getting the rs are piss poor stewards of the money they get ? Is the answer to simply keep giving them money and further enabling their irresponsible ways? It's like your brother in law who brags about how much he blew on hookers and blow then asks for a loan to cover his rent. Yes some teams that are struggling financially are doing so at the result of things they had little control of, but others are ther based on their own poor choices.

If it was clear that the teams that were getting RS were busting their ***** to get off of it, no one would have a problem with it. But the perception is, that this is not true. If Toronto and mtl thought that there would be a tangible return for their investment, they would pay willingly. But if the argument is, we can't make a go of it in this market and thus will need you to prop us up as we keep making risky or irresponsible choices forever, then I can see why the have teams would take pause.

There comes a point when you got to cut a guy lose, the idea that the have teams should open up their wallets and shut their mouths forever is in my opinion short sighted.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:07 PM
  #92
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I think the leafs and the habs have zero problem giving teams a helping hand in the name of league wide stability. But what if ( as many believe )the teams that are getting the rs are piss poor stewards of the money they get ? Is the answer to simply keep giving them money and further enabling their irresponsible ways?

It's like your brother in law who brags about how much he blew on hookers and blow then asks for a loan to cover his rent. Yes some teams that are struggling financially are doing so at the result of things they had little control of, but others are ther based on their own poor choices.

If it was clear that the teams that were getting RS were busting their ***** to get off of it, no one would have a problem with it. But the perception is, that this is not true. If Toronto and mtl thought that there would be a tangible return for their investment, they would pay willingly. But if the argument is, we can't make a go of it in this market and thus will need you to prop us up as we keep making risky or irresponsible choices forever, then I can see why the have teams would take pause.

There comes a point when you got to cut a guy lose, the idea that the have teams should open up their wallets and shut their mouths forever is in my opinion short sighted.
I agree with you that owners shouldn't be getting RS cheques and not investing that money into their on-ice product. That was a huge problem in baseball.

However, that's not what's happening in the NHL. The money teams receive in revenue sharing goes towards the LEAGUE-MANDATED MINIMUM PAYROLL.

The League is essentially FORCING bad personnel decisions by the owners: The Islanders suck at developing young talent. They didn't BEFORE the cap (see former Islanders Luongo, Bertuzzi, Chara, Redden, etc). After the cap, they have their prospects who should be in juniors and the minors playing in the NHL because it's the easiest way to save money when the league forces you to spend to the floor (counting their ELCs/bonuses against the cap gets you to the floor with phantom dollars).

The teams that need/get revenue sharing are all below the salary floor if they spend 57% of HRR on players. No team "re-invests" a higher percentage of their HRR on players than the Islanders.

The losses they'd have without revenue sharing are because the NHL took away the ability to only spend within their means.

Your whole analogy with your fictional brother in-law only applies if YOU were both his drug dealer and the hooker's pimp (but that would make no sense for you to do. Much like the NHL CBA makes no sense for the health of the league!)

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:45 AM
  #93
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I think the leafs and the habs have zero problem giving teams a helping hand in the name of league wide stability. But what if ( as many believe )the teams that are getting the rs are piss poor stewards of the money they get ? Is the answer to simply keep giving them money and further enabling their irresponsible ways? It's like your brother in law who brags about how much he blew on hookers and blow then asks for a loan to cover his rent. Yes some teams that are struggling financially are doing so at the result of things they had little control of, but others are ther based on their own poor choices.

If it was clear that the teams that were getting RS were busting their ***** to get off of it, no one would have a problem with it. But the perception is, that this is not true. If Toronto and mtl thought that there would be a tangible return for their investment, they would pay willingly. But if the argument is, we can't make a go of it in this market and thus will need you to prop us up as we keep making risky or irresponsible choices forever, then I can see why the have teams would take pause.

There comes a point when you got to cut a guy lose, the idea that the have teams should open up their wallets and shut their mouths forever is in my opinion short sighted.
I see more irresponsibility in NYR and TO spending than I do in the spending of sharing recipients. Guys like Redden and Finger. $3mil (top GM pay) to a GM who obviously has serious shortcomings. Probably more suit support in TO than any other team. That is profligacy.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 03:54 AM
  #94
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
I see more irresponsibility in NYR and TO spending than I do in the spending of sharing recipients. Guys like Redden and Finger. $3mil (top GM pay) to a GM who obviously has serious shortcomings. Probably more suit support in TO than any other team. That is profligacy.
Not every contact is going to work out, i dont like the redden deal and despite the fact that I like the gomez deal even less, i do like that the habs havent buried him in hamilton.

These deals, although not ideal, wont tip the cart. But deals like koclchuck or the stuff that happened in minny are big time threats. If suter and parise dont pan out then that will be two alvatrosses around the wilds neck. I think it is inevitible that some deals wont work our, but I dont like the idea that rs serves as a backup for risky deals because if it does not work out the owners can keep giving away tikets with six packs of beers and then cry poor at the end of every cba.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 05:07 AM
  #95
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Not every contact is going to work out, i dont like the redden deal and despite the fact that I like the gomez deal even less, i do like that the habs havent buried him in hamilton.

These deals, although not ideal, wont tip the cart. But deals like koclchuck or the stuff that happened in minny are big time threats. If suter and parise dont pan out then that will be two alvatrosses around the wilds neck. I think it is inevitible that some deals wont work our, but I dont like the idea that rs serves as a backup for risky deals because if it does not work out the owners can keep giving away tikets with six packs of beers and then cry poor at the end of every cba.
The giveaways to fans are "growing the game". Eventually the giveaways are reduced. I probably dislike the Phoenix situation as much as yourself and wouldn't hold it up as an example, but I disagree on the issues of how they got there. If they stay, you are probably talking about a 2 decade build to stability. And I do think they could become stable if everything goes perfectly.

I don't think there should be complaints about sharing when the big guys are throwing away money left, right and sideways and that includes making high risk personnel decisions. Those risks are not growing the game.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 08:23 AM
  #96
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
The giveaways to fans are "growing the game". Eventually the giveaways are reduced. I probably dislike the Phoenix situation as much as yourself and wouldn't hold it up as an example, but I disagree on the issues of how they got there. If they stay, you are probably talking about a 2 decade build to stability. And I do think they could become stable if everything goes perfectly.

I don't think there should be complaints about sharing when the big guys are throwing away money left, right and sideways and that includes making high risk personnel decisions. Those risks are not growing the game.
Where does his optimism come from? I dont know what will happen to some of the have not team in two years much less two decades. But I appreciate your answer because I previously asked how long should the grace period be for non traditional markets and no one answered.

If non traditional markets want to grow the game then they have to be responsible and in it for the long haul ( kind of like the preds) where it is clear that they are interested in the gane not going from one failed promotion to the next that cheapens the games. It says something profound that in many cases it costs less to fly from a have city to see a have team in a have not arena.

So if you think it takes 20 years to stable under ideal conditions, i presume you would be okay with a team getting rs for 25 years straight? Since you were kind enough to answer my previous question, do you think that there is a time when you have to say some markets are not sustainable ? If so, when does the clock reach zero?

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 12:21 PM
  #97
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,632
vCash: 500
revenue sharing? as long as it's fair.

i live in mtl, i go to a habs game and well the ticket cost me say $100.
the league has rev sharing, so some of MY money goes to the Yotes?
Why do I pay? and if the Yotes tickets sold for the same $100 per, at least that part would be equal. Now I see a lot of you already ahead of me on this We all know the Yotes sell great tickets for $20 per of even less on promo with beer+parking at $40 for 4 tickets,4 beer and 4 dogs

Now will ANYBODY explain to why part of MY money is paying for cheap tickets and free beer and free food to a Yotes fan because the NHL has rev-sharing????????? At the very least. The NHL should set the price of tickets and every club charges the same. WOW would that prove that some teams are in the wrong place. When the CDN dollar was at .60 of the US dollar this might have worked BUT NOT NOW and NEVER AGAIN.
As it stands NOW it is very close to theft or fraud against the Hab fan.
ALL the Canadian teams make money. the arena's are FULL at HIGH PRICE. it sure looks like the US is just grabbing Canadian Money.
Now the players want the rich teams to give free money even more to the poor teams. I say Molson should print right on the ticket exactly what part of the money goes where. Watch what happens then, when a fan sees that he is giving an extra $20 to a Yotes Fan for free. But that would be the truth. Nobody wants to tell the fan the truth of this rip-off.

RC51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:10 PM
  #98
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Fans pay the market rate for NHL tickets in their city and have been consistently asking for and siding with the side that promoted 30 equal teams and parity. That's why fans in Toronto and Montreal have to pay more and share with smaller markets - because of the system they demanded the owners lock the players out to get.

It's hard to feel sympathy for fans upset because they pay more for tickets in their city than other cities and want a competitive advantage within the 30 equal teams parity system because of that.



But it's gotta really rub some owners the wrong way. I think Ottawa and Florida's owners for example, are or were competitors in the pharmaceutical business in their other non-NHL lives. And were engaged in many lawsuits and brutal competitive tactics against each other, actually, and unlike in the NHL, designed to put their competitor out of business or sue his pants off.

And then at the same time, they are to send revenue sharing cheques to each other from their NHL business to help each other? That's gotta sting.

But, if you set up a system of 30 equal teams, salary caps, and parity, im guessing a grade schooler could tell you that revenue sharing would be required to make it work properly. Like the other leagues they are trying to be like have.

And in the just expired cba, they had such revenue sharing; linked to revenue growth and guaranteed to allow any team to spend to the midpoint. Unless they were big markets or not growing like the average team. And then these same teams who had their revenue sharing cut back are held up as reasons why the players need to take pay cuts so as to allow the system to work - seems on the surface a hard narrative to make convincingly.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 07:42 PM
  #99
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Where does his optimism come from? I dont know what will happen to some of the have not team in two years much less two decades. But I appreciate your answer because I previously asked how long should the grace period be for non traditional markets and no one answered.

If non traditional markets want to grow the game then they have to be responsible and in it for the long haul ( kind of like the preds) where it is clear that they are interested in the gane not going from one failed promotion to the next that cheapens the games. It says something profound that in many cases it costs less to fly from a have city to see a have team in a have not arena.
They have to go low cost in non-traditional markets at the outset. Bring in the fans first, improve the product, raise the prices in small increments. The formula is there. SJ, Nashville, Dallas . . . A fall off in performance will hurt even some of the most hardcore cities. FYI, I don't consider Minny non-traditional. That growth ultimately benefits the larger markets in national TV contracts and merchandising.

The reason I don't like the Phoenix example is that they did everything wrong. Bad arena location, horrible hockey ops (using some of the same management strategies as TO is using), bad arena lease. If they stay, they start from scratch. They have hockey ops now, they can get arena management with Jamison and they need to work on fan promotion. I really don't like the fact that the league has provided little to no oversight on arena leases and that they really haven't instituted an internal program for training hockey ops people at the NHL level.

And just so you have an idea, I don't think growth in non-traditional is out of the question. The US now leads Canada in amateurs enrolled in hockey. It wasn't close 2 decades ago. Texas, Tennessee and California are sprouting rinks even in a down economy. In looking at the electoral votes in the last election, I recognized the population shifts from decades ago. California has far surpassed Canada in total population. The league has gone to the high growth areas just going by the shift in the electoral map. It isn't magic and a lot of migration has come from the northeast and northern midwest which is THE hockey hotbed of the US. In a sense, the league is gambling on the attraction to hockey but it does take decades and the seeds are there.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:24 PM
  #100
Disgruntled Observer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Maybe the owners shouldn't hand out franchises like candy.

Sorry, you guys took the money. If the owner of a team wants to continue in his current location, you're stuck with that team being there until the owner wants to sell or re-locate.
What does this have to do with the owners of the Toronto Maple leafs and other rich teams?
Why should they have to pay all those millions due to mistakes made by owners of their direct competition?

Disgruntled Observer 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 12:02 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.