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
11-13-2012, 09:09 PM
  #151
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Sorry for the sidebar. Let's get this back on topic.

Forget the notion that maybe Revenue Sharing shouldn't exist. It does exist, for a good reason, and it's probably not going away.

As long as payroll is tied to revenue, how do you put limits on who gets revenue sharing over time in a way that ensures the players get their cut? What kind of mechanism can there be?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-13-2012, 11:09 PM
  #152
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
"Non-traditional" market is a phrase that exists only in the NHL.

Simply put, the media that covers MLB and the NBA has no agenda towards the success or failure of the Grizzlies, Raptors, Expos or Blue Jays. James Naismith who invented basketball was Canadian.
).
So what is it ? Is losing another southern team a pr disaster or not ?

If the market cant support it and the ownership walks away fom the team ( like atlanta) then the team should disappear. How are the yotes doing right now ? What happens when the cog subsidy evaporates ?

Yoy know what is funny, if more people in these southen markets actually gave a crap whether the team existed or not, this would be far less of a problem. And the notion that the have teams should prop up unsustainable teams in order for some to save face is irresponsibly self centered. Yet people such as yourself are still pining for that big national tv contract and are convinced that if only the teams in canada pumped millions more into RS, that ultimately people in louisiana will pick up a love for the game. Geez why dont you wish for a pony while you are at it?

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 02:52 PM
  #153
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So what is it ? Is losing another southern team a pr disaster or not ?

If the market cant support it and the ownership walks away fom the team ( like atlanta) then the team should disappear. How are the yotes doing right now ? What happens when the cog subsidy evaporates ?
What is what? The NHL is different from the NBA/MLB. If MLB expanded into MON, TOR, VAN, EDM, and OTT rapid fire, and then when the Expos were driven into the ground by Loria, and VAN, EDM and OTT relocated that would be a PR disaster for the game of baseball. "Baseball is an AMERICAN sport. It only works in America. Canadians don't care about baseball, all they care about is hockey." That would not be good for baseball.

Same with hockey and the South.
As the Jets, North Stars and 'Diques proved, just because a team has an owner who wants out and no new owner who wants in; doesn't mean the market itself cannot sustain a team. Ditto the Expos. Montreal supported the Expos just fine until Loria's scorch the earth tactics.

Moyes was the Loria of hockey. Everyone else is simply a poor team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Yoy know what is funny, if more people in these southen markets actually gave a crap whether the team existed or not, this would be far less of a problem. And the notion that the have teams should prop up unsustainable teams in order for some to save face is irresponsibly self centered. Yet people such as yourself are still pining for that big national tv contract and are convinced that if only the teams in canada pumped millions more into RS, that ultimately people in louisiana will pick up a love for the game. Geez why dont you wish for a pony while you are at it?
What was the national TV deal before expansion? What was it in the ESPN days? What was is it now?

Saying that "big national contract" is never going to happen only works if your definition of "big national contract" is based on the NFL and MLB. When you compare it to the $17.5 million contract the NHL had (that was more "regional" than "national"), the strategy worked.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:38 PM
  #154
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
What is what? The NHL is different from the NBA/MLB. If MLB expanded into MON, TOR, VAN, EDM, and OTT rapid fire, and then when the Expos were driven into the ground by Loria, and VAN, EDM and OTT relocated that would be a PR disaster for the game of baseball. "Baseball is an AMERICAN sport. It only works in America. Canadians don't care about baseball, all they care about is hockey." That would not be good for baseball.

Same with hockey and the South.
As the Jets, North Stars and 'Diques proved, just because a team has an owner who wants out and no new owner who wants in; doesn't mean the market itself cannot sustain a team. Ditto the Expos. Montreal supported the Expos just fine until Loria's scorch the earth tactics.

Moyes was the Loria of hockey. Everyone else is simply a poor team.
So just to be clear, when atlanta walked away from the thrashers that was an ownership issue but when the yotes went through bankruptcy, got bought by the NHL who kicked the tires on at least three different ownership groups and still could not find a suitor, then we cant pull the plug on the yotes because it would be bad PR ? The yotes dont have an owner now and havent for years, although i'm told that the jamison deal is going to close in a couple of weeks.

Its not surprising to me that bad markets attract bad owners. it seems to me that your argument that if you undergo rapid expansion and grant entrance into a bunch of non traditional markets that the league must throw good money after bad because admitting what everyone knows ( expansion too fast into iffy markets) and they must keep throwing money at this bottomless pit because the league cant come out and say they made a mistake.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 04:53 PM
  #155
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So just to be clear, when atlanta walked away from the thrashers that was an ownership issue but when the yotes went through bankruptcy, got bought by the NHL who kicked the tires on at least three different ownership groups and still could not find a suitor, then we cant pull the plug on the yotes because it would be bad PR ? The yotes dont have an owner now and havent for years, although i'm told that the jamison deal is going to close in a couple of weeks.

Its not surprising to me that bad markets attract bad owners. it seems to me that your argument that if you undergo rapid expansion and grant entrance into a bunch of non traditional markets that the league must throw good money after bad because admitting what everyone knows ( expansion too fast into iffy markets) and they must keep throwing money at this bottomless pit because the league cant come out and say they made a mistake.
Jamison does not equal bad owner. He isn't an owner per se, more a sports team exec who fronts for money people. Beyond that, Jamison has proven his worth in SJ, an acknowledged successful market. He grew an arena book to over 200 events from zero without a dual major (NBA/NHL) presence. Not many arena managers can say that. From the arena usage in Glendale, it seems that he is exactly what the Yotes need.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 05:44 PM
  #156
sandysan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Jamison does not equal bad owner. He isn't an owner per se, more a sports team exec who fronts for money people. Beyond that, Jamison has proven his worth in SJ, an acknowledged successful market. He grew an arena book to over 200 events from zero without a dual major (NBA/NHL) presence. Not many arena managers can say that. From the arena usage in Glendale, it seems that he is exactly what the Yotes need.
I dont think he has the money so he might not ever get to be an owner. The inability to close the deal might not fall exclusively on his shoulders but I'm tired of the " two more weeks" refrain.

Other people kicked the tires and passed. If jamison is as good as you say then hopefully the COG wont have to sweeten the pot the way they have been.

sandysan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 06:19 PM
  #157
TaketheCannoli
RIP
 
TaketheCannoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ohio
Country: United States
Posts: 8,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So if the season is lost, what percentage of sth do you think re-up in columbus ? What if (god forbid) we sit out teo years ?

The haves will be hurt in their pockets but they have the luxury of knowing that whenever the game starts up, there wll be butts in the seats ( even if they are not the same butts). My impression is that columbus ( among other non traditional market teams) will not be afforded this luxury.
Their mismanagement already cut into STH. This lockout won't have much affect.

Also, please define "non-traditional market"


Last edited by TaketheCannoli: 11-14-2012 at 06:25 PM.
TaketheCannoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 06:21 PM
  #158
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I dont think he has the money so he might not ever get to be an owner. The inability to close the deal might not fall exclusively on his shoulders but I'm tired of the " two more weeks" refrain.

Other people kicked the tires and passed. If jamison is as good as you say then hopefully the COG wont have to sweeten the pot the way they have been.
The growth doesn't happen overnight. It doesn't matter whether you are tired of the drama. It does matter whether Jamison has backers who can stomach the loss. The deal is related to the stomach the backers have. How much are they willing to lose waiting for Jamison to turn it around? How much is Glendale willing to subsidize the time frame? I suspect that Jamison has a pretty good grip on an expected growth rate and the losses that would need to be absorbed in a road to profitability.

I will repeat that I am not happy with Phoenix. The history put up huge roadblocks to future success. I don't know that it is worth it to spend more to turn it around, but I won't criticize current actors for mistakes of the past. My take is that the 2 of 3 contributing pieces for success in Phoenix are present. The missing piece is a workable arena deal. Jamison has hockeyops and stadium usage. He will need to get better at attracting sponsorships.

As a small stipulation on the argument. A smart investor buys low and sells high. If anything, Phoenix is a huge buy low situation. The counterpoint is that the state of being low is frequently a precursor to complete collapse. The minefield that the smart investor tries to navigate.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:14 PM
  #159
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
As long as payroll is tied to revenue, how do you put limits on who gets revenue sharing over time in a way that ensures the players get their cut? What kind of mechanism can there be?
It's best for the players and teams giving out revenue sharing if it's given as incentive for owners with smaller fanbases to run their teams well. That's the only way those teams are going to increase their fanbase and therefore their revenue. You have to tie it to wins. It gives those owners incentive to hire well and spend money on their hockey ops and payroll. Revenue sharing that throws good money at bad is not good for anyone except the guy doing a poor job running their franchise, which doesn't make any sense.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:25 PM
  #160
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's best for the players and teams giving out revenue sharing if it's given as incentive for owners with smaller fanbases to run their teams well. That's the only way those teams are going to increase their fanbase and therefore their revenue. You have to tie it to wins. It gives those owners incentive to hire well and spend money on their hockey ops and payroll. Revenue sharing that throws good money at bad is not good for anyone except the guy doing a poor job running their franchise, which doesn't make any sense.
But what do you say when the guys who are giving up sharing handcuff the guys who receive it through draconian expansion draft rules? Teams that don't offer advice on arena lease arrangements? Teams that haven't prepped the next group of GMs and HCs? A lot of franchise operations do offer advice and either control or oversee lease arrangements. It's like saying "we'll tie your hands behind your back and then complain when it doesn't work". It's a minor miracle that some teams have thrived.

And better yet, negotiate a CBA that requires that a team may overspend its means so that the wealthy teams can pocket even more profits. That is called robbing from the poor to pay the rich.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:39 PM
  #161
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
But what do you say when the guys who are giving up sharing handcuff the guys who receive it through draconian expansion draft rules?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Teams that don't offer advice on arena lease arrangements? Teams that haven't prepped the next group of GMs and HCs? A lot of franchise operations do offer advice and either control or oversee lease arrangements. It's like saying "we'll tie your hands behind your back and then complain when it doesn't work". It's a minor miracle that some teams have thrived.
If I bought a Tim Horton's franchise I would take it upon myself to sign a good lease and hire good people. I would probably make sure I could do both before buying a franchise. I don't think other franchise owners would be willing to cut me a cheque if I signed a bad lease or hired poorly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
And better yet, negotiate a CBA that requires that a team may overspend its means so that the wealthy teams can pocket even more profits. That is called robbing from the poor to pay the rich.
The NHL has way more poor teams than rich if you believe their numbers, how did those teams let that happen? Poor business decision.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-14-2012, 11:53 PM
  #162
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,273
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
No better than the 17th or 18th best player from existing teams. Something like the reserve forward or 7th dman.


If I bought a Tim Horton's franchise I would take it upon myself to sign a good lease and hire good people. I would probably make sure I could do both before buying a franchise. I don't think other franchise owners would be willing to cut me a cheque if I signed a bad lease or hired poorly.

Doesn't happen in a lot of US franchise operations. Head offices walk in and will actually demand that you run your business a certain way. Mainly because the new owner such as yourself probably doesn't have a clue. Personally I will go with experience on how to run a successful business meaning the franchisor.


The NHL has way more poor teams than rich if you believe their numbers, how did those teams let that happen? Poor business decision.
This last part was negotiated in the last CBA. Part of it was at the NHLPA's insistence. The owners did not set up the system in vacuum to ONLY their set of specifications. They took the best available to get hockey back on the ice. The 5% inflator, cap floor and rev sharing were at the insistence of the PA. All 3 of those work against low rev teams who did not sign up for the system when purchasing the team initially.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:24 AM
  #163
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
So just to be clear, when atlanta walked away from the thrashers that was an ownership issue but when the yotes went through bankruptcy, got bought by the NHL who kicked the tires on at least three different ownership groups and still could not find a suitor, then we cant pull the plug on the yotes because it would be bad PR ?
Moving anyone is bad PR, but what I said was that abandoning the south would be a PR disaster (in response to the "all these failed southern markets" kind of comment someone made, not sure who).

Phoenix has been a PR nightmare for years, any resolution is better.
(Although, I think the NHL would be wise to relocate them to Houston, to avoid further "Failed South" stories).

I'm not saying Phoenix can't be moved or there's horrific PR consequences. I'm saying AFTER Phoenix, you can't cut off any protection for Florida, Carolina, Nashville and hope they fail/move, as some posters were bringing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Its not surprising to me that bad markets attract bad owners. it seems to me that your argument that if you undergo rapid expansion and grant entrance into a bunch of non traditional markets that the league must throw good money after bad because admitting what everyone knows ( expansion too fast into iffy markets) and they must keep throwing money at this bottomless pit because the league cant come out and say they made a mistake.
#1 - I've always said that SUDDEN expansion was way worse than SOUTHERN expansion.
#2 - Pretty much, yes. But it's not about "pride" or "stubbornness." It's about the point of no return. The NHL knocked up the South, now they have to pay child support.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:26 AM
  #164
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
It's best for the players and teams giving out revenue sharing if it's given as incentive for owners with smaller fanbases to run their teams well.
There is. It's called "The Stanley Cup."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
That's the only way those teams are going to increase their fanbase and therefore their revenue. You have to tie it to wins. It gives those owners incentive to hire well and spend money on their hockey ops and payroll. Revenue sharing that throws good money at bad is not good for anyone except the guy doing a poor job running their franchise, which doesn't make any sense.
No, you don't have to tie it to wins. Revenue Sharing exists because the floor eliminates the ability for teams to spend within their means. It slashes their budgets from things like scouts and marketing that enables the team to get better. That's why the rich teams are paying the poor teams; because they voted to take away the poor team's ability to control their own expenses.

Revenue Sharing doesn't throw good many after bad. If you want to talk about a team pocking millions and not putting a good product on the ice, look no further than Toronto. They signed off on Revenue Sharing because it gives them someone else to blame while choosing to not go the extra mile to win because they'd rather pocket millions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

If I bought a Tim Horton's franchise I would take it upon myself to sign a good lease and hire good people. I would probably make sure I could do both before buying a franchise. I don't think other franchise owners would be willing to cut me a cheque if I signed a bad lease or hired poorly.
If you bought a Tim Horton's you'd be paying corporate a percentage of your HRR (Horton's Related Revenue) that is almost 10% higher (14%) than the Maple Leafs' percentage of Hockey Related Revenue to their corporate body for revenue sharing (4.5%). Tim Horton's can and does redistribute that to other franchises (usually in the form of equipment, signage, etc) that benefits their overall enterprise as a whole. Tim Horton's shares more revenue than the NHL so that their business is in the best possible position. Because it's the smart thing to do.

Do you advocate 14% revenue sharing?

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:39 AM
  #165
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
There is. It's called "The Stanley Cup."
Obviously not enough incentive for a lot of franchises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
No, you don't have to tie it to wins. Revenue Sharing exists because the floor eliminates the ability for teams to spend within their means. It slashes their budgets from things like scouts and marketing that enables the team to get better. That's why the rich teams are paying the poor teams; because they voted to take away the poor team's ability to control their own expenses.
Interesting. You'd think that the poor teams would be able to out vote the rich teams considering how many poor teams the NHL is claiming. How many votes does Toronto have?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Revenue Sharing doesn't throw good many after bad. If you want to talk about a team pocking millions and not putting a good product on the ice, look no further than Toronto. They signed off on Revenue Sharing because it gives them someone else to blame while choosing to not go the extra mile to win because they'd rather pocket millions.
The Vancouver Canucks make money, some of it mine. They do it by running their team well, signing good contracts, drafting and developing well etc. That's a well run business, that's why it makes money. Giving money to another owner so they can piss it away on a poorly run team is throwing good money at bad. The same teams that struggled before this system are still struggling, giving them handouts so they can continue to run their business into the ground doesn't help anyone except the inept owner. Hire well, invest in your team, have success, make money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
If you bought a Tim Horton's you'd be paying corporate a 10% higher percentage of your HRR (Horton's Related Revenue) than the Maple Leafs percentage of Hockey Related Revenue to their corporate body for revenue sharing. Tim Horton's can and does redistribute that to other franchises (usually in the form of equipment, signage, etc) that benefits their overall enterprise as a whole. Tim Horton's shares more revenue than the NHL so that their business is in the best possible position.

Do you advocate 14% revenue sharing?
I wouldn't be interested in my hard earned money going to a guy that thought opening a Tim Hortons in a town of 12 people with no through road and hiring his 12 year old nephew to run it was a good idea.


Last edited by Scurr: 11-15-2012 at 12:59 AM.
Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 01:18 AM
  #166
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Obviously not enough incentive for a lot of franchises.
If it's so easy to put a winning team on the ice, why hasn't the richest team in the sport won a Cup since 1967?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Interesting. You'd think that the poor teams would be able to out vote the rich teams considering how many poor teams the NHL is claiming. How many votes does Toronto have?
Because it isn't "Rich" vs "poor." There's three tiers of teams, and they're not in perfect balance.

They were all in favor of the cap and cutting costs; the players demanded a floor, and the poor teams obviously would be against that. Revenue sharing gave them the money they need to afford the floor -- at the time. It worked in 2006. It doesn't now because of growth.

The league got a consensus: it's impossible for everyone to get what they want, but everyone could live with it.
Ultimately, the situation for the poor got better -- while they were still poor, the rich were capped, so they had limits on how far behind they were.
The rich -- capped on what they could spend and giving up some parity in the league got what they wanted -- more dough in the pockets, even after revenue sharing.
The middle -- best of both worlds: closer to the top if they want to spend; cost certainty so they don't have to spend; more dough to keep; and a safety net if they hit hard times and dipped to the lower class

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The Vancouver Canucks make money, some of it mine. They do it by running their team well, signing good contracts, drafting and developing well etc. That's a well run business, that's why it makes money. Giving money to another owner so they can piss it away on a poorly run team is throwing good money at bad. The same teams that struggled before this system are still struggling, giving them handouts so they can continue to run their business into the ground doesn't help anyone except the inept owner. Hire well, invest in your team, have success, make money.
It wasn't designed to make the struggling financial teams BETTER. It only off-sets the raise of the minimum payroll so they can keep operating.

Uncapped: last in revenue, low payroll of $20 million, last place.
Floor/Sharing: Last in revenue, low payroll of $38 million, last place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I wouldn't be interested in my hard earned money going to a guy that thought opening a Tim Hortons in a town of 12 people with no through road and hiring his 12 year old nephew to run it was a good idea.
That's true. But that's TH's franchise policy. Of course, the difference here is that while you didn't get a say in that foolish franchise opening; the Toronto Maple Leafs DID get a say in the NHL expansion.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 03:30 AM
  #167
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
It wasn't designed to make the struggling financial teams BETTER. It only off-sets the raise of the minimum payroll so they can keep operating.
I don't care what it was designed for. The only way struggling markets turn it around is with on ice success, it just doesn't make sense to keep a team afloat that is going to keep losing for another 20 years.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 11:51 AM
  #168
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
it just doesn't make sense to keep a team afloat that is going to keep losing for another 20 years.
So we should contract the Maple Leafs?

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 11:57 AM
  #169
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
So we should contract the Maple Leafs?
The Leafs might be losing consistantly, but they're Not being kept afloat. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite, they're consistantly helping other teams to stay afloat.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:00 PM
  #170
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The Leafs might be losing consistantly, but they're Not being kept afloat. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite, they're consistantly helping other teams to stay afloat.
I was being sarcastic

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 12:05 PM
  #171
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I was being sarcastic
I figured as much, but still an illogical comparison.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 03:56 PM
  #172
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I don't care what it was designed for.
And that's why you're arguing against a conclusion unrelated to the premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The only way struggling markets turn it around is with on ice success
True, and unrelated to revenue sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
it just doesn't make sense to keep a team afloat that is going to keep losing for another 20 years.
Also true, and also unrelated to revenue sharing. Revenue sharing doesn't keep teams afloat. It offsets the increase in minimum payroll. That's why the teams at the bottom financially before RS are still the teams at the bottom after RS. Because all RS does is raise everything to towards the floor: The minimum payroll and their revenues.

It as a cost of living increase. It would be like an employer mandating you purchase something for work, but adding the cost of it to your salary.

Phoenix, Florida, Nashville and St. Louis made the playoffs, so their on-ice product improved, and that submarines your "keep losing for another 20 years" point. (It's also pretty tough for that to apply that to Tampa and Carolina, considering their names are on the Cup).

Atlanta has already relocated. And the Islanders, Stars, Devils and Ducks don't get revenue sharing.


So whom exactly is it that revenue sharing is "keeping afloat without the team improving it's on-ice product"?

You've got 1 out of 30 teams who could POSSIBLY meet this description. Then again if Phoenix can improve it's product with the lowest pre-RS revenue in the league, Columbus isn't necessarily going to be crappy for the next 20 years.


Last edited by KevFu: 11-15-2012 at 04:02 PM.
KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 03:58 PM
  #173
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The Leafs might be losing consistantly, but they're Not being kept afloat. In fact, they're doing the exact opposite, they're consistantly helping other teams to stay afloat.
And doing so while taking home more of their revenues than before Revenue Sharing.

EVERYONE WINS with revenue sharing, except those who want to see franchises relocate.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 04:36 PM
  #174
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And that's why you're arguing against a conclusion unrelated to the premise.
No, I'm arguing against helping teams that aren't helping themselves. Giving teams handouts so they can keep running their teams poorly is not a conclusion, it only allows the real problem to continue longer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
So whom exactly is it that revenue sharing is "keeping afloat without the team improving it's on-ice product"?

You've got 1 out of 30 teams who could POSSIBLY meet this description. Then again if Phoenix can improve it's product with the lowest pre-RS revenue in the league, Columbus isn't necessarily going to be crappy for the next 20 years.
If you take a look at the teams losing a lot of money they have two things in common, they haven't had sustained success on the ice and they've made poor business decisions off of it. One season of "success" (is making the playoffs really success in a 30 team league where 16 make it?) isn't going to turn around years of damage.

The league is going to get 50% of HRR, that will help. The rest needs to be made up by teams doing a better job of running their business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
And doing so while taking home more of their revenues than before Revenue Sharing.

EVERYONE WINS with revenue sharing, except those who want to see franchises relocate.
Nobody wins with giving revenue sharing to teams being run poorly except that inept owner.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 05:03 PM
  #175
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Nobody wins with giving revenue sharing to teams being run poorly except that inept owner.
The NFL has won quite nicely by divvying up revenues nearly equally between all clubs. And they've rode that business model to become the most profitable sports league in the world.

SaintPatrick33 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 05:45 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.