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
11-11-2012, 09:29 PM
  #101
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
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.
Instead of creating the revenue sharing system that's proven to be dramatically unfair to the FANS of rich teams... the millionaire players should just take a substantially smaller piece of the pie.
Problem solved...

Who would I rather see take a hit?
Millionaire players?
Or the regular joe FANS of the rich teams?

The answer is simple...

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:47 PM
  #102
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Give joe fans of rich teams cheaper tickets? Yeah i guess it is simple when you put it that way. If only the owners could get the players to take a paycut, then they could let the fans of rich teams pay less for tickets. But alas, they are forced to send all these revenue sharing cheques to poor markets so they have no choice but to charge those prices.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:48 PM
  #103
The CyNick
Follow @ TheCyNick
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
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.
I dont recall saying I wanted a cap system

The CyNick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 09:57 PM
  #104
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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?
Something I haven't seen answered. If the NHL has 300m in their RS pot, and the plan is that it goes to the bottom 15 teams (assuming that it doesn't push teams more into the black than those above them), then why does it matter which 15 teams are getting the money?

It's not like the money would be saved for a rainy day it it's not given out. It's either given out, or returned to the other teams somehow. So again, what's the big deal about where it goes? With how the CBA is setup, there will always be teams on the bottom who will need assistance. It doesn't even matter who those teams are... when it's based on average revenue, and when every team brings in different amounts of revenue, those at the bottom will always need RS assistance.

As long as there's an owner who's willing to keep the team there, then there's still time on the clock. Now other than Phoenix, I don't think there's any teams who will be in a position anytime soon to vacate their building/lease anytime soon. Florida, Columbus and now the Islanders all have long term leases. Who else would be in a position to move?

__________________
"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
11-11-2012, 10:03 PM
  #105
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick View Post
I dont recall saying I wanted a cap system
So you'd rather them go back to the system they had 10 years ago? Where multiple teams were on the verge of bankruptcy, and salaries were 75% of revenues? Where there was no parity, and there were several farm teams who couldn't afford to retain their talent?

Yea sounds ideal. There's a reason why the NHL grew revenues by 50% in 7 years. And it's not because they allowed teams to spend whatever they wanted.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:09 PM
  #106
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Give joe fans of rich teams cheaper tickets? Yeah i guess it is simple when you put it that way. If only the owners could get the players to take a paycut, then they could let the fans of rich teams pay less for tickets. But alas, they are forced to send all these revenue sharing cheques to poor markets so they have no choice but to charge those prices.
Ticket prices are based on supply and demand.

I have no problems paying $150 for mediocre tickets to watch the maple leafs, AS LONG AS THE MONEY ALL GOES TO THE MAPLE LEAFS!!!!
But me paying $150 for mediocre tickets and then some of it goes to help my DIRECT COMPETITION???? Unacceptable. Utterly unacceptable. I'm essentially paying more money for my tickets so that fans in Phoenix and Floriday can spend $30 for theirs.
It's not fair!!!

What is a much fairer solution FOR THE FANS?
Simple...
The millionaire players can take a much smaller piece of the pie.
They'll still be ridiculously, out of this world rich.
For those poorer players that can't make ends meet with their half a million salary?
Another simple solution.
A 'salary sharing' plan. Let's see how the players like it.

It's already a travesty as it is. But to increase revenue sharing? Outlandish.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:28 PM
  #107
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
revenue sharing? as long as it's fair.

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.
So... instead of Montreal charging you market rate (which means as much as fans are willing to pay), and pocketing all the profits, and watching them play a bunch of crappy farm teams with zero talent. You'd rather that, then them charging the exact same price for tickets, and get to watch a bunch of quality games with a bunch of teams whom all have some talent.

Asking everyone to support their team to the same extent Canadian fans do, is a script to losing 1/3rd or more of the league. Because outside of Canada, and a few select teams in the US, most cannot compete with Canada.

edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Ticket prices are based on supply and demand.

I have no problems paying $150 for mediocre tickets to watch the maple leafs, AS LONG AS THE MONEY ALL GOES TO THE MAPLE LEAFS!!!!
But me paying $150 for mediocre tickets and then some of it goes to help my DIRECT COMPETITION???? Unacceptable. Utterly unacceptable. I'm essentially paying more money for my tickets so that fans in Phoenix and Floriday can spend $30 for theirs.
It's not fair!!!

What is a much fairer solution FOR THE FANS?
Life isn't fair. The product you're watching isn't a public thing. These teams are part of a private league that can set whatever rules they want. If those rules mean that teams have to put up 250m in RS, then so be it.

Why would you want to see your team still charge as much as possible, yet watch crappier opponents, and thus receive less value for your dollar?


Last edited by Riptide: 11-11-2012 at 10:40 PM.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:33 PM
  #108
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
So... instead of Montreal charging you market rate (which means as much as fans are willing to pay), and pocketing all the profits, and watching them play a bunch of crappy farm teams with zero talent. You'd rather that, then them charging the exact same price for tickets, and get to watch a bunch of quality games with a bunch of teams whom all have some talent.

Asking everyone to support their team to the same extent Canadian fans do, is a script to losing 1/3rd or more of the league. Because outside of Canada, and a few select teams in the US, most cannot compete with Canada.
Instead of revenue sharing, the millionaire players should just take a substantially smaller piece of the pie.

Then the poor teams have no need of revenue sharing, and fans of rich teams don't have to pay inflated prices for tickets to subsidize poor teams.

But then... (oh, the horror)... the players would only be able to afford four mansions, as opposed to five.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:36 PM
  #109
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
I would also like to question something...

Leafs tickets sell out in MOMENTS after going on sale. It's almost impossible to get your hands on them.

So is this really supply and demand? You would think, if it really was supply and demand, that ticket prices in Toronto would be substantially higher.

So that begs the question...
if the leafs owners have to dish out an additional few dozens of millions of dollars for revenue sharing... wouldn't they just increase their ticket/hot dog/beer prices in order to make up the difference?

Increased revenue sharing is so unfair to the fans of rich teams that it's just sickening.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 10:45 PM
  #110
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Instead of revenue sharing, the millionaire players should just take a substantially smaller piece of the pie.

Then the poor teams have no need of revenue sharing, and fans of rich teams don't have to pay inflated prices for tickets to subsidize poor teams.
You're going to pay the exact same price regardless if there's RS or not. Teams charge as much as they think the fans are willing to pay, not less, not more. The only difference is how much of that is profit to that team, and how much goes to help the league that your team is part of, for the betterment of the league in general.

edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I would also like to question something...

Leafs tickets sell out in MOMENTS after going on sale. It's almost impossible to get your hands on them.

So is this really supply and demand? You would think, if it really was supply and demand, that ticket prices in Toronto would be substantially higher.

So that begs the question...
if the leafs owners have to dish out an additional few dozens of millions of dollars for revenue sharing... wouldn't they just increase their ticket/hot dog/beer prices in order to make up the difference?

Increased revenue sharing is so unfair to the fans of rich teams that it's just sickening.
Then you should be happy that Toronto isn't charging as much as they could be. And I've never had an issue getting tickets when I was in Toronto. Only been a few times, yet still watched every game I was in town for.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:09 PM
  #111
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
You're going to pay the exact same price regardless if there's RS or not. Teams charge as much as they think the fans are willing to pay, not less, not more. The only difference is how much of that is profit to that team, and how much goes to help the league that your team is part of, for the betterment of the league in general.
I would MUCH prefer that the millionaire players just took a smaller piece of the pie than for MY ticket price money helping my DIRECT COMPETITION.
No contest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Then you should be happy that Toronto isn't charging as much as they could be. And I've never had an issue getting tickets when I was in Toronto. Only been a few times, yet still watched every game I was in town for.
Tickets sell out in seconds after going on sale.
They're very difficult to get. This is no secret.

The price that scalpers sell their tickets at are supply and demand. Not the leafs.

Yes... I am very happy that my team doesn't gouge us as much as they could.
Something that would DEFINITELY go away if they have to pay dozens of millions of extra dollars on with revenue sharing.

Once again... what would I rather? To pay MORE money for my tickets to help the poor teams?
OR FOR THE MILLIONAIRE PLAYERS TO SIMPLY TAKE A SMALLER PIECE OF THE PIE?

It's such an obvious answer that I can't believe a discussion is currently even happening.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:09 PM
  #112
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Ticket prices are based on supply and demand.

I have no problems paying $150 for mediocre tickets to watch the maple leafs, AS LONG AS THE MONEY ALL GOES TO THE MAPLE LEAFS!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Instead of revenue sharing, the millionaire players should just take a substantially smaller piece of the pie.

Then the poor teams have no need of revenue sharing, and fans of rich teams don't have to pay inflated prices for tickets to subsidize poor teams.
You say the words, but do you grasp what you are saying?

To solve the problem of big revenue teams being forced to share some of their new profits that have come about because the cap has forced them to spend millions less on salaries than they otherwise would, you are proposing giving the billionaires a larger slice of the pie? To save you from the indignity of seeing your teams owners share their revenues with other owners? Not because you will get cheaper prices?


You pay more than other cities because of demand in your city. You pay the price to see NHL hockey. How the owners share that money amongst themselves shouldnt bother you.

Perhaps you would like a system where fans can pay whatever they like for tickets. The more they spend, the more their owners would have to spend on players.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:19 PM
  #113
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Tickets sell out in seconds after going on sale.
They're very difficult to get. This is no secret.


The price that scalpers sell their tickets at are supply and demand. Not the leafs.

Yes... I am very happy that my team doesn't gouge us as much as they could.
Something that would DEFINITELY go away if they have to pay dozens of millions of extra dollars on with revenue sharing.

Once again... what would I rather? To pay MORE money for my tickets to help the poor teams?
OR FOR THE MILLIONAIRE PLAYERS TO SIMPLY TAKE A SMALLER PIECE OF THE PIE?

It's such an obvious answer that I can't believe a discussion is currently even happening.
Apparently not... It took me all of 5 minutes to find a ticket for Toronto/Montreal on opening night last year in the lower bowl (row 10 or 14 - can't remember now). Saturday night, Toronto/Sens took even less time.

And your team isn't going to have to pay dozens of millions (implying multiple dozens) more than what they're currently paying. My understanding is that Toronto paid out 15m last year. They might pay double that going forward (would depend on how it's structured, final numbers, etc).

Yes we'd all rather the players take less. That would actually help the league long term. However, don't confuse that with teams charging less for tickets... it will not happen. Ticket prices will continue to go up as long as the team believes there's a market for those tickets.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:05 AM
  #114
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
You say the words, but do you grasp what you are saying?

To solve the problem of big revenue teams being forced to share some of their new profits that have come about because the cap has forced them to spend millions less on salaries than they otherwise would, you are proposing giving the billionaires a larger slice of the pie? To save you from the indignity of seeing your teams owners share their revenues with other owners? Not because you will get cheaper prices?


You pay more than other cities because of demand in your city. You pay the price to see NHL hockey. How the owners share that money amongst themselves shouldnt bother you.

Perhaps you would like a system where fans can pay whatever they like for tickets. The more they spend, the more their owners would have to spend on players.
Supply and demand is what the scalpers sell tickets at. Substantially more money.
Leafs tickets sell out in nano-seconds.
It's very very very clear that the leafs could sell there tickets for A LOT more money.

And now that they're going to have to pay almost $20 million more in revenue sharing, I guess that's precisely what they'll do.
Thanks nhlpa.
Way to look out for the fans.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:11 AM
  #115
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Apparently not... It took me all of 5 minutes to find a ticket for Toronto/Montreal on opening night last year in the lower bowl (row 10 or 14 - can't remember now). Saturday night, Toronto/Sens took even less time.

And your team isn't going to have to pay dozens of millions (implying multiple dozens) more than what they're currently paying. My understanding is that Toronto paid out 15m last year. They might pay double that going forward (would depend on how it's structured, final numbers, etc).

Yes we'd all rather the players take less. That would actually help the league long term. However, don't confuse that with teams charging less for tickets... it will not happen. Ticket prices will continue to go up as long as the team believes there's a market for those tickets.
Did you buy your tickets from Scalpers/off-sales?
My guess is yes, you did. You probably paid inflated prices.
Of course... you can just make up a whole different story, and nobody would know the difference.
It's the precise reason that personal stories like that shouldn't be used in such arguments.

Leaf tickets sell out every single game.
They sell out in minutes.
They CLEARLY could sell them for more money.

Beers in the ACC are very expensive.
They're still preposterously long line ups.
They CLEARLY could get away selling them for more money.

And now with all the increased revenue sharing... I'm sure that's PRECISELY what they'll do.
Thanks nhlpa.
Way to look out for the fans.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:55 AM
  #116
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
The giveaways to fans are "growing the game". 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.
I think the major factor in the opposition to revenue sharing is resentment.
I understand that when people have to pay high prices, and see other teams giving away tickets, they get upset.
I also understand fans being upset when their high-charging teams miss the playoffs and teams with far fewer fans make the playoffs.

However, I don't think any of that ticket prices, nor high-charging teams' failure in the standings is in any way related to revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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?
The "responsibility for growing the game" was taken off their shoulders when the NHL took away their marketing budgets by jacking up the minimum payroll by $39 million ($12 mil before the lockout; $51 million last season).

The reason no one gives you a time frame is because: Pulling the plug on franchises is a PR disaster of epic proportions.

The league has been trying to dispel the notion that the NHL is a niche sport that only belongs in Canada, the extreme North of the United States, and maybe Denver and Los Angeles.

That notion is why the league doesn't get major media time.
That notion is why the league doesn't have a TV deal similar to the other Big Four.

Now, there's some basis for the opinion. In general, far less people care about hockey outside of Canada, the extreme North of the United States, and maybe Denver and Los Angeles.

For the league to formally declare that opinion as factÖ disastrous. I could paint you a very similar analogy, but it would probably range outside the scope of the Business of Hockey and be inappropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
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.

Nobody wants to tell the fan the truth of this rip-off.
Two things:
#1 - What Does It Matter Where Your Money Goes After You Pay For The Ticket?
Out of a $100 ticket, less than $2 per ticket is going into revenue sharing. But if you think if revenue sharing didn't exist, you'd only have to pay $98 for a ticket, you're mistaken. You're not charged $100 instead of $98 because of revenue sharing.

You're getting charged $100 because you'll pay $100 (and if you don't, someone else will gladly step in for the privilege). If you don't want your $2 going to revenue sharing, don't buy the ticket.

If that $2 didn't go to revenue sharing, where would it go? Into the pockets of the corporation that owns the team. Corporations really don't care about providing the customers with any more than what they have to do in order to get the customers coming back (Just out of curiosity, who was the last NHL team owned by a big corporation that won the Stanley Cup?
It's funny to me that the three richest teams have won 2 Cups in the last 25 years, and none since 1995. Throw in the Flyers who are Cupless since the 70s, and that's TWO cups since 1980Ö by the four-richest corporate owned teams in hockey. The Four richest NON-corporate owned teams in hockey have won 6 of the last 16 Cups. Hmmm. The guys who treat the team as a hobby win; the guys who treat it like a business don't win very often).

It's not like the revenue sharing money prevents the team from spending on players. With a salary cap, Molson Corp. merely pockets the money.

So, your choice: Throw $2 into a billionaire's money vault, or have more people interested in hockey around the globe.


#2 - Revenue sharing exists because teams that don't have money are NOT ALLOWED to spend "only what they can afford."

The agreement the owners had to make with the players guaranteed them 57% of all the league's HRR. How do the owners all pay 57% of HRR. The owners all said that 57% of HRR was all they could afford to pay the players.

So, in order to give the players 57%, why not have each team pay 57% of their HRR into a central fund, and the NHL used that to pay all the players? Every team could still offer contracts, they'd just be paid by the league and their payrolls couldn't go over the salary cap. That's fair, isn't it?

Hell no! Teams like Phoenix could go out and throw $62 million worth of contract offers out in free agency and pay only $31 million. The Canadiens would be turning over $98 million and getting $62 million worth of players!

Instead, the Canadiens pay $74 million for $62 million worth of players (4.5% of local HRR). That's 44.8% of their HRR.

This is why the rich teams agreed to Revenue Sharing. Instead of TOR, MON, NYR, DET, PHI, BOS, VAN getting into bidding wars and paying 70% of their revenues on players, the cap and floor and 4.5% revenue sharing means these teams are paying like 45% of their HRR on revenue sharing.

It's a freaking steal for them. They are choosing profits over a spending war to win championships.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:30 AM
  #117
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
I have no problems paying $150 for mediocre tickets to watch the maple leafs, AS LONG AS THE MONEY ALL GOES TO THE MAPLE LEAFS!!!!
But me paying $150 for mediocre tickets and then some of it goes to help my DIRECT COMPETITION???? Unacceptable. Utterly unacceptable. I'm essentially paying more money for my tickets so that fans in Phoenix and Floriday can spend $30 for theirs.
It's not fair!!!
I happen to agree with all of this and couldn't have said it any better.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:44 AM
  #118
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,136
vCash: 50
It would be better if more of NHLs revenue wasn't gate revenue. I do agree that it leaves a bitter taste for fans paying very high ticket prices that some of that money goes to other teams. It's also income that the teams work very hard to gain, so them getting to keep as much of it as possible would be better.

It's a shame that the labor conflict might make it harder to grow non-gate revenue. I can't imagine sponsors and tv networks are all that impressed at the moment.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 02:58 AM
  #119
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
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?
Toronto voted yes to adding expansion teams in Tampa, Miami, Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta (and Anaheim, who's ineligible for RS)
Toronto voted yes to the Jets relocating to Phoenix (and the North Stars relocating to Dallas, who are ineligible)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
if the leafs owners have to dish out an additional few dozens of millions of dollars for revenue sharing... wouldn't they just increase their ticket/hot dog/beer prices in order to make up the difference?

Increased revenue sharing is so unfair to the fans of rich teams that it's just sickening.
#1 - Because Leafs fans will pay those prices unless some major incident makes them stop buying tickets. An increase from $200 to $300 might make people question the expense of that kind of money on tickets. "I didn't like it at $200, but $300? I can't really afford that." But no one ever says "Well, I could afford $200, but $208? Where am I gonna get an extra eight bucks?"

#2 - Revenue sharing is 4.5% of local revenues. Tickets are less than half of local revenues. The Leafs raised ticket prices 3.5% in 2009. So, they kind of are increasing prices to "make up the difference".

#3 - Make up WHAT difference?

You are looking at this all backward. How much money did the Leafs hand out BEFORE revenue sharing?

59% of their revenues in 2004 went to the players. The Leafs got 41% of their revenues.

How much money do the Leafs hand out NOW?
4.5% of their revenues, into revenue sharing.
30.8% of their revenues to the players if they spend to the cap.
With Revenue Sharing, only 35.3% or their revenues went to the players

The Leafs' "Owners Share" jumped from 41% to 64.7% --- which is why they VOTED IN FAVOR of revenue sharing.

You can blame revenue sharing/poor teams/southern markets all you like. But it looks to me like the Leafs are screwing you over by putting profits ahead of winning; squeezing every dime they can out of their fan base while not delivering a quality product. And you keep paying for it.


Last edited by KevFu: 11-12-2012 at 03:12 AM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:03 AM
  #120
Disgruntled Observer*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Toronto voted yes to adding expansion teams in Tampa, Miami, Nashville, Columbus and Atlanta (and Anaheim, who's ineligible for RS)
Toronto voted yes to the Jets relocating to Phoenix (and the North Stars relocating to Dallas, who are ineligible)
So because they voted yes all those years ago in an attempt and grow the sport, they now have to pay dozens of millions of dollars per year to their direct competition whenever those owners make mistakes?
This is insane.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
#1 - Because Leafs fans will pay those prices unless some major incident makes them stop buying tickets. An increase from $200 to $300 might make people question the expense of that kind of money on tickets. "I didn't like it at $200, but $300? I can't really afford that." But no one ever says "Well, I could afford $200, but $208? Where am I gonna get an extra eight bucks?"

#2 - Revenue sharing is 4.5% of local revenues. Tickets are less than half of local revenues. The Leafs raised ticket prices 3.5% in 2009. So, they kind of are increasing prices to "make up the difference".

#3 - Make up WHAT difference?

You are looking at this all backward. How much money did the Leafs hand out BEFORE revenue sharing?

59% of their revenues in 2004 went to the players. The Leafs got 41% of their revenues.

How much money do the Leafs hand out NOW?
4.5% of their revenues, into revenue sharing.
30.8% of their revenues to the players if they spend to the cap.
With Revenue Sharing, only 35.3% or their revenues went to the players

The Leafs' "Owners Share" jumped from 41% to 64.7% --- which is why they VOTED IN FAVOR of revenue sharing.

You can blame revenue sharing/poor teams/southern markets all you like. But it looks to me like the Leafs are screwing you over by putting profits ahead of winning; squeezing every dime they can out of their fan base while not delivering a quality product. And you keep paying for it.
If the options are,
a) revenue sharing (which is dramatically unfair to the fans of rich teams)
b) the millionaire players simply take a smaller piece of the pie and can buy one less mansion

i'd go with option b) a million times out of a million.

Disgruntled Observer* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 08:08 AM
  #121
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,706
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post

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.
No one denies thatmdemographics change but you are buying into the same fairy tale that largely got us into this mess, the notion that population density translates into untapped markets. In some cases this might be true, in many others it is not. And when this fact is repeatedly proven, the fans from these failing markets simply ask for more time becuase of the existing untapped potential. The question is never asked, how have these teams exploited these markets to make team growth better ? i dont think that florida and phoenix will ever have the same market as mtl or toronto, but I do think that if they have made zero or minimal progress in their own markets, that questions. Have to be asked. " becuase we are in a non traditional market" cant be the answer for ever liability.

If teams think that a sustainable model can be based on snow birds and expats, then they deseserve their fates. If they are struggling to fil their houses they should partner with the airlines and have subsidised fares from have cities, where people have demo strated a willingness to pay premium prices.
But then again a bunch of one timers who got in becuase thry bought a case of cup a soup looks so muck better than hordes of invading fans that are passionate about the game.

Im a canadian living in the states, I have no doubts that there are markets in the us that are are passionate and supportive as any canadian markets. I am as sure of this as I am that there are no worse marketsmin canada that some of the markets in the us.

I understand the short term benefits of RS, I am not an extremist, but I think that there has to be some reasonable middle ground, help the teams that need it but propping up teams forever when they are unwilling or incapable of helping themselves is lunancy. Instead of having RS requirements based on things like salaries and markets, incorporate additional metrics that demonstrate by some measure that the previous rs helped.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:49 AM
  #122
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
Did you buy your tickets from Scalpers/off-sales?
My guess is yes, you did. You probably paid inflated prices.
Of course... you can just make up a whole different story, and nobody would know the difference.

Thanks nhlpa.
Way to look out for the fans.
Off-sales. Define inflated... clearly they were not that inflated as I still found the prices to be quite reasonable. Please do not question my honesty. Even if it was from scalpers... there's tickets to be had, and it's not hard to find them. Whether you're willing to pay the asking price is a different matter. So you're not getting them from MLSE. Boo hoo.

As much as I hate it, the NHLPA's job is to look out for the players. The fans do not (and should not) enter into the equation at all. This is one of the downfalls of unions. They don't care if they kill the goose, as long as up until that time they get as much money as possible.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:00 AM
  #123
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If the options are,
a) revenue sharing (which is dramatically unfair to the fans of rich teams)
b) the millionaire players simply take a smaller piece of the pie and can buy one less mansion

i'd go with option b) a million times out of a million.
How is it unfair to rich teams? They make more money now paying RS than they did before.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:23 PM
  #124
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
So because they voted yes all those years ago in an attempt and grow the sport, they now have to pay dozens of millions of dollars per year to their direct competition whenever those owners make mistakes?
This is insane.
The Leafs only "have to pay" revenue sharing because THEY VOTED TO so they could make more money in a cap system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgruntled Observer View Post
If the options are,
a) revenue sharing (which is dramatically unfair to the fans of rich teams)
b) the millionaire players simply take a smaller piece of the pie and can buy one less mansion

i'd go with option b) a million times out of a million.
It's not dramatically unfair. It's a system that gives THEM more money.

Your Leafs voted to aide other teams so they could pocket more profits.

Your beef isn't with the league, it's with the Leafs. They choose a system that would make more teams able to compete with them financially, decrease their ability to spend to win, gave them an excuse to jack up prices (which you're falling for), and pocket millions more in profits rather than re-investment.

How is it unfair to someone who has a vote and votes in favor of it?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:44 PM
  #125
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
... gave them an excuse to jack up prices (which you're falling for), and pocket millions more in profits rather than re-investment.
"Re-investment" in what Kev? Leaf "Restaurants", bars including the one planned for Ottawa? Another condo tower? When youve got nothing to sell but the past, you capitalize. Takes some serious brainwork to understand that. Because of the business model forced upon us, why bother? We'll just keep selling retro, no hope for today or tomorrow, but yesterday? Bankable commodity. Why bother with the fray, the jetsam & floatsam with all that history? Were arrogant. Cant touch us. Oh sure we spend more on Scouting, Coaching, Capologists & general admin then everyone else, but its only a facade because we know that despite our wealth, cant win. So we just continue to trot out George Armstrong in a wheelchair, Johnny Bower with his Canes. Crowd loves it.

Killion is online now   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 08:31 PM.

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.