HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

Jeremy Jacobs is angry about lockout

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-21-2013, 10:14 AM
  #76
Quezzle E
Registered User
 
Quezzle E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
The next time I want to hear from Jacobs is when the Bruins win the cup.. or his funeral...

Quezzle E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 11:27 AM
  #77
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
16% of half the leagues revenues, 7% of total revenues. 231 million dollars based on 3.3 billion revenue... yes? My math may be wrong so feel free to correct it if it is.

Revenue sharing now totals 200 million (again, based on 3.3 billion revenue), 100 million (or 50%) of which will come directly from the top 10 revenue teams of which Boston is one (and one of the higher ones)... yes?

I'm not sure why anyone would think Jacobs is making out far better financially because of this CBA.
No, 16% more than they made under the old cba.

43% of 3.3 Billion = 1,419,000,000
50% of 3.3 billion = 1,650,000,000

Ownership will make an additional 230mil/year at 3.3 billion total HRR.

That's a 16% increase on what the 1.4billion they made under the old CBA.

The increase in revenue sharing is only 60 mil/year (from 140-> 200).

Another way to look at it- ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 01:04 PM
  #78
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
No, 16% more than they made under the old cba.

43% of 3.3 Billion = 1,419,000,000
50% of 3.3 billion = 1,650,000,000

Ownership will make an additional 230mil/year at 3.3 billion total HRR.

That's a 16% increase on what the 1.4billion they made under the old CBA.


The increase in revenue sharing is only 60 mil/year (from 140-> 200).

Another way to look at it- ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves.
Yes exactly. They've gained 7% total revenue or 16% on their previous portion. I suppose I shouldn't have referred to that as "their half".

Regardless, the way you're portraying the gains here is pretty slanted, specifically in regards to Revenue sharing. Yes, ownership as a whole shares 1.8% more of revenues now, but we aren't talking about ownership as a whole. We're talking Jacobs. While every team benefits from an increased owners share and gets more money because of it, only 10 teams shoulder the load of increased revenue sharing, Boston being one of them. So sure, they gained 7% total revenues but in regards to Jacobs he now kicks in substantially more to revenue sharing.

Put another way, (all assuming 3.3 billion revenue) 231 million dollars equates to about 7.7 million more per team. With increased revenue sharing the top 10 teams will contribute 100 million directly or 10 million per team (assuming this isn't weighted towards the top teams, and I believe it is). 33% of which is new money, so now we're talking 7.7 million gained in owners share less 3.3 million in increased revenue sharing.

And again, this isn't figuring in make whole payments, changes to pension contributions, the other 100 million for revenue sharing, etc...

End of the day, I'd be very very surprised if the top revenue teams stand to make much more under the new CBA then they did under the old... which I believe is exactly what Jacobs says here. Most definitely not enough to justify a lockout that could have potentially done damage to the current revenue stream anyway.

Again, it's fairly obvious this lockout was about the smaller market teams, not guys like Jeremy Jacobs regardless of how justified that would make some feel in regards to their feelings toward him.


Last edited by Kaoz: 01-21-2013 at 01:10 PM.
Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 01:52 PM
  #79
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Yes exactly. They've gained 7% total revenue or 16% on their previous portion. I suppose I shouldn't have referred to that as "their half".

Regardless, the way you're portraying the gains here is pretty slanted, specifically in regards to Revenue sharing. Yes, ownership as a whole shares 1.8% more of revenues now, but we aren't talking about ownership as a whole. We're talking Jacobs. While every team benefits from an increased owners share and gets more money because of it, only 10 teams shoulder the load of increased revenue sharing, Boston being one of them. So sure, they gained 7% total revenues but in regards to Jacobs he now kicks in substantially more to revenue sharing.

Put another way, (all assuming 3.3 billion revenue) 231 million dollars equates to about 7.7 million more per team. With increased revenue sharing the top 10 teams will contribute 100 million directly or 10 million per team (assuming this isn't weighted towards the top teams, and I believe it is). 33% of which is new money, so now we're talking 7.7 million gained in owners share less 3.3 million in increased revenue sharing.

And again, this isn't figuring in make whole payments, changes to pension contributions, the other 100 million for revenue sharing, etc...

End of the day, I'd be very very surprised if the top revenue teams stand to make much more under the new CBA then they did under the old... which I believe is exactly what Jacobs says here. Most definitely not enough to justify a lockout that could have potentially done damage to the current revenue stream anyway.

Again, it's fairly obvious this lockout was about the smaller market teams, not guys like Jeremy Jacobs regardless of how justified that would make some feel in regards to their feelings toward him.
Your math is just all over the place. The 33% increase in revenue sharing was on the 150mil (150-200) whe. You run the number backwards- 33% of what it is now - it inflates the number.

You say the top 10 make up half of that increase, and that you dont know how it splits but go on to figure Boston is on the hook for 1/10th. Why make that assumption when We know teams like Toronto, MTL and the rangers pull in far more than Boston.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 02:55 PM
  #80
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
Your math is just all over the place. The 33% increase in revenue sharing was on the 150mil (150-200) whe. You run the number backwards- 33% of what it is now - it inflates the number.

You say the top 10 make up half of that increase, and that you dont know how it splits but go on to figure Boston is on the hook for 1/10th. Why make that assumption when We know teams like Toronto, MTL and the rangers pull in far more than Boston.
Boston's middle of the pack, consistently around #5. 10 million is a best guess based on the average. Not much else you can do in that regard until the actual number comes out. It's less disingenuous then using the statement "ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves" in order to show Jacobs made a killing off the CBA. You're completely negating the additional costs incurred, and they are significant to high revenue teams, in order to push your agenda.

As for how much of that is new money if you have a better way to figure it out have at 'er. The total increased 33%, therefore the contributions of each of the teams who contribute money to it should also increase similarly.

Regardless, unless you choose to ignore the additional costs of the new CBA (which some seem to be doing) you'd have a hard time making the case that Jacobs is going to profit significantly off the new CBA. As I started off saying, increasing owners share from 43% to 50% isn't that big a deal in the end to team owners like Jacobs. Certainly not enough to justify potentially damaging the revenue stream with a lockout.

Conspiracies are fun and all but it's pretty easy to see this lockout was about the smaller market teams. Increased owner share, increased revenue sharing, contract and variance limits... it all helps smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the player buyouts the players were demanding because it didn't help smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the transition to 50/50 to take two years because it didn't help the smaller markets.


Last edited by Kaoz: 01-21-2013 at 03:07 PM.
Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:09 PM
  #81
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,841
vCash: 500
The vouchers are generous to the patrons, but ******* the concession workers getting screwed.

Please, for the love of god, tip and tip well.

Kate08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:12 PM
  #82
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Boston's middle of the pack, consistently around #5. 10 million is a best guess based on the average. Not much else you can do in that regard until the actual number comes out. It's less disingenuous then using the statement "ownership gained 7% of total revenue in return for sharing 1.8% more between themselves" in order to show Jacobs made a killing off the CBA. You're completely negating the additional costs incurred, and they are significant to high revenue teams, in order to push

As for how much of that is new money if you have a better way to figure it out have at 'er. The total increased 33%, therefore the contributions of each of the teams who contribute money to it should also increase similarly.

Regardless, unless you choose to ignore the additional costs of the new CBA (which some seem to be doing) you'd have a hard time making the case that Jacobs is going to profit significantly off the new CBA. As I started off saying, increasing owners share from 43% to 50% isn't that big a deal in the end to team owners like Jacobs. Certainly not enough to justify potentially damaging the revenue stream with a lockout.

Conspiracies are fun and all but it's pretty easy to see this lockout was about the smaller market teams. Increased owner share, increased revenue sharing, contract and variance limits... it all helps smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the player buyouts the players were demanding because it didn't help smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the transition to 50/50 to take two years because it didn't help the smaller markets.
There is no conspiracy theory it's just basic math. You're making up the numbers you want on revenue sharing to put Boston where you want them. For example- you assume ownership's 7% increase in hrr will be split evenly among 30 teams but that the 1.8% that goes to revenue sharing will come disproportionally out of jj because Boston is "somewhere in the top five" of league revenues.

It is not disingenuous to say "they gained 7% in return for sharing 1.8% of it" because both are tied to a teams revenue. If Boston has to pay more of the 1.8 it's because they pull more of the 7.

-oh , and they weren't against the buyouts and transition to 50/50 because they hurt the smaller teams- they were against them because it cost them $.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:38 PM
  #83
bigbadjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
16% of half the leagues revenues, 7% of total revenues. 231 million dollars based on 3.3 billion revenue... yes? My math may be wrong so feel free to correct it if it is.

Revenue sharing now totals 200 million (again, based on 3.3 billion revenue), 100 million (or 50%) of which will come directly from the top 10 revenue teams of which Boston is one (and one of the higher ones)... yes?

I'm not sure why anyone would think Jacobs is making out far better financially because of this CBA.
Using your numbers 231 million more to owners this year, divided by 30 is $7,700,000 more.

The revenue sharing is up to 200 million, an increase of 50 million from last year. So Bruins will be one of ten teams on the hook for half of that increase. 25 million divided by ten is $2,500,000.

7.7 - 2.5 is 5.2, right?

bigbadjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:41 PM
  #84
GordonHowe
Registered User
 
GordonHowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dorchester, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quezzle E View Post
The next time I want to hear from Jacobs is when the Bruins win the cup.. or his funeral...

"Contemptible Turd." See Jacobs, Jeremy.

o.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/learned-jeremy-jacobs-baffling-frustrating-nhl-lockout-grandstanding-143828606--nhl.html

* Go to Puck Daddy for article; address too long to post here.


Last edited by GordonHowe: 01-21-2013 at 03:42 PM. Reason: Helpful hint
GordonHowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:53 PM
  #85
bigbadjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy at all. I'm claiming this new CBA is better for owners, including Jacobs and that the lockout was not a minus for them in the long run.

I agree with you that this was all about the smaller markets, them and the spendthrifts. But the main issue for the smaller markets is who pays to keep them viable? Revenue sharing is one way. NFL revenue sharing is 60%. What's the NHL? 6%?

Of course, neither side wanted what I suspect most fans would prefer, contraction.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Conspiracies are fun and all but it's pretty easy to see this lockout was about the smaller market teams. Increased owner share, increased revenue sharing, contract and variance limits... it all helps smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the player buyouts the players were demanding because it didn't help smaller markets. The NHL didn't want the transition to 50/50 to take two years because it didn't help the smaller markets.

bigbadjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 03:56 PM
  #86
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjohn View Post
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy at all. I'm claiming this new CBA is better for owners, including Jacobs and that the lockout was not a minus for them in the long run.

I agree with you that this was all about the smaller markets, them and the spendthrifts. But the main issue for the smaller markets is who pays to keep them viable? Revenue sharing is one way. NFL revenue sharing is 60%. What's the NHL? 6%?

Of course, neither side wanted what I suspect most fans would prefer, contraction.
Absolutely- the question is who pays and the answer is the players. Doesn't cost jj a thing. Making bigger profits and *****ing about how angry it makes him having to cancel half a season to do it.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:18 PM
  #87
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
The deal the players ultimately signed was nothing like what they were offered in October. Jacobs was either delusional or lying when he said that.

Puck Daddy was all over the silliness of the statement.

EverettMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 05:20 PM
  #88
deliciouspie
the best post »»»»»
 
deliciouspie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: sf, austin, here
Country: United States
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to deliciouspie
but you see both deals were on paper, therefore

deliciouspie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:12 PM
  #89
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
There is no conspiracy theory it's just basic math. You're making up the numbers you want on revenue sharing to put Boston where you want them. For example- you assume ownership's 7% increase in hrr will be split evenly among 30 teams but that the 1.8% that goes to revenue sharing will come disproportionally out of jj because Boston is "somewhere in the top five" of league revenues.

It is not disingenuous to say "they gained 7% in return for sharing 1.8% of it" because both are tied to a teams revenue. If Boston has to pay more of the 1.8 it's because they pull more of the 7.

-oh , and they weren't against the buyouts and transition to 50/50 because they hurt the smaller teams- they were against them because it cost them $.
So basic math is to ignore a a piece of the equation because you don't know the exact specifics? But only when it suits your purpose apparently, because frankly we are assuming all figures in this discussion including projecting HRR a year out to assume 50% then will be greater then 43% was a year ago.

You'll have us ignore increased revenue sharing, 60 million divided out between 10 teams of which Boston is one because we don't know exactly how it will be divided... interesting premise but sure... why not.

You'll have us ignore increased club contributions to pension plans again because we don't know the specifics? Again, interesting method but I can see how it will suit your purposes here.

PS. Buyouts only cost an owner money if he chooses to buy someone out. There was absolutely zero incentive for Jacobs and other owners to be against buyouts for selfish reasons as you are suggesting here because it doesn't cost them a dime unless they choose to use them and those that are used count against the players share. Not sure I understand your reasoning on that one, but then again I don't understand why we're ignoring the other financial implications of the CBA either. Other then this being a witch hunt of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjohn View Post
Using your numbers 231 million more to owners this year, divided by 30 is $7,700,000 more.

The revenue sharing is up to 200 million, an increase of 50 million from last year. So Bruins will be one of ten teams on the hook for half of that increase. 25 million divided by ten is $2,500,000.

7.7 - 2.5 is 5.2, right?
Maybe now would be a good time to bring up the fact that we're talking about revenues as if they were profits? 7% of revenues equates to an additional 231 million revenue league wide, but that doesn't mean there will be an extra 231 million in profit for owners to share.

Last year (according to Forbes - sorry, best we got) teams as a whole made approx. 250 million profit even though their share of revenue was 1.419 Billion. They brought home about 17% of that total revenue figure. Had their share been 50% instead of 43%, still using the 17% approximation, they would have brought home about 290 million (17% of 1.65 billion), or 40 million extra which equates to an additional 1.3 million in profit assuming an even 30 way split (which of course wouldn't happen).

If you want to break out the uneven split of revenue more, Boston brought in roughly 5% of that total profit (14.2 million of 250 million) last year. Toronto brought in 32% (82 million of 250 million), Rangers brought in 29.5% (74 million of 250 million). etc etc...

Know what 5% (Boston's slice of the profit pie) of 290 million is? 14.5 million. So... 14.3 million to 14.5 million. Jacobs might as well close up shop on all his other ventures with that windfall.

Not exactly 7.7 million each in the end. Of course revenue sharing, pension contributions, etc... all come out of those figures before hand, and it's all just estimation based on past percentages but again, what else are we going to do?

Even after all this discussion I still find it extremely hard to believe Jacobs was behind the lockout in order to better line his own pockets. My math sucks though... soooo...

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 07:42 PM
  #90
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,171
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
So basic math is to ignore a a piece of the equation because you don't know the exact specifics? But only when it suits your purpose apparently, because frankly we are assuming all figures in this discussion including projecting HRR a year out to assume 50% then will be greater then 43% was a year ago.

You'll have us ignore increased revenue sharing, 60 million divided out between 10 teams of which Boston is one because we don't know exactly how it will be divided... interesting premise but sure... why not.

You'll have us ignore increased club contributions to pension plans again because we don't know the specifics? Again, interesting method but I can see how it will suit your purposes here.

PS. Buyouts only cost an owner money if he chooses to buy someone out. There was absolutely zero incentive for Jacobs and other owners to be against buyouts for selfish reasons as you are suggesting here because it doesn't cost them a dime unless they choose to use them and those that are used count against the players share. Not sure I understand your reasoning on that one, but then again I don't understand why we're ignoring the other financial implications of the CBA either. Other then this being a witch hunt of course.



Maybe now would be a good time to bring up the fact that we're talking about revenues as if they were profits? 7% of revenues equates to an additional 231 million revenue league wide, but that doesn't mean there will be an extra 231 million in profit for owners to share.

Last year (according to Forbes - sorry, best we got) teams as a whole made approx. 250 million profit even though their share of revenue was 1.419 Billion. They brought home about 17% of that total revenue figure. Had their share been 50% instead of 43%, still using the 17% approximation, they would have brought home about 290 million (17% of 1.65 billion), or 40 million extra which equates to an additional 1.3 million in profit assuming an even 30 way split (which of course wouldn't happen).

If you want to break out the uneven split of revenue more, Boston brought in roughly 5% of that total profit (14.2 million of 250 million) last year. Toronto brought in 32% (82 million of 250 million), Rangers brought in 29.5% (74 million of 250 million). etc etc...

Know what 5% (Boston's slice of the profit pie) of 290 million is? 14.5 million. So... 14.3 million to 14.5 million. Jacobs might as well close up shop on all his other ventures with that windfall.

Not exactly 7.7 million each in the end. Of course revenue sharing, pension contributions, etc... all come out of those figures before hand, and it's all just estimation based on past percentages but again, what else are we going to do?

Even after all this discussion I still find it extremely hard to believe Jacobs was behind the lockout in order to better line his own pockets. My math sucks though... soooo...
No, basic math is that the teams generating more revenue will be the teams paying more in revenue sharing. If the additional 7% were split evenly across the league the revenue sharing would be split evenly as well.

And if its team profits that are shared boston would come in 9th right after Edmonton and Ottawa.

I'd really like to know where you got the idea jj is some kind of financial martyr for love of the game.

JMiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:36 PM
  #91
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
No, basic math is that the teams generating more revenue will be the teams paying more in revenue sharing. If the additional 7% were split evenly across the league the revenue sharing would be split evenly as well.

And if its team profits that are shared boston would come in 9th right after Edmonton and Ottawa.

I'd really like to know where you got the idea jj is some kind of financial martyr for love of the game.
I don't believe he's a financial martyr at all nor did I ever say I did, but if I did I assume that notion would come from roughly the same place as your notion that Jacobs and other GM's were against amnesty buyouts because they'd lose money because of it. It's probably small, dark, and smelly there no doubt.

It's not team profits that are shared, else it would be called profit sharing.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-21-2013, 08:54 PM
  #92
howaryuh
Registered User
 
howaryuh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,635
vCash: 500
My brain is shut down for number crunching, too much of that at work.

So long as it is more profitable for Jacobs to be one of the top 10 teams, all will be good.

howaryuh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 12:37 AM
  #93
bigbadjohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 755
vCash: 500
well, i'm not an accountant, i don't play one on tv and i didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night, but... i'm not equating revenue with profits.

there are revenues and expenditures. by slicing the revenue pie up to take 7% back from players, the owners increased their revenues.

the increase in revenue sharing is an expenditure. in this case, the increase in that expenditure is less than the increase in revenue. a simple concept, i know you grasp.

profit is another story entirely and can be hidden in various ways, or at least left off the books. that's what accountants and tax lawyers are for.

the CBA was about the smaller struggling markets. the owners and players both want the teams to stay. someone was going to have to pay for that. the owners just didn't to be that someone, so they wanted to take back more from the players. all things are not equal from last year to this. the "solution" to the problem with the smaller markets was going to cost money. it came from the players, not the owners. that's a win for the owners.

i'd have preferred they take a look at their current revenue sharing and change the model to something that approaches the other professional sports they were so fond of comparing the revenue split with. the solution they came up with doesn't really solve the problem. and i'd like to think that deciding to lockout the players and put everyone through this nonsense once again, they would have actually solved the problem.

of course the problem with a more robust revenue sharing scheme is those who generate the revenue are reluctant to share it equally with those who do not. Mr. Jacobs is one of those who generates revenue. i'm just guessing here, but i'm pretty certain he's also one of those unlikely to be willing to share it.

i look forward to him stepping down from his "leadership" role within the NHL.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz;58043661
Maybe now would be a good time to bring up the fact that we're talking about revenues as if they were profits? 7% of revenues equates to an additional 231 million [B
revenue[/B] league wide, but that doesn't mean there will be an extra 231 million in profit for owners to share.

Last year (according to Forbes - sorry, best we got) teams as a whole made approx. 250 million profit even though their share of revenue was 1.419 Billion. They brought home about 17% of that total revenue figure. Had their share been 50% instead of 43%, still using the 17% approximation, they would have brought home about 290 million (17% of 1.65 billion), or 40 million extra which equates to an additional 1.3 million in profit assuming an even 30 way split (which of course wouldn't happen).

If you want to break out the uneven split of revenue more, Boston brought in roughly 5% of that total profit (14.2 million of 250 million) last year. Toronto brought in 32% (82 million of 250 million), Rangers brought in 29.5% (74 million of 250 million). etc etc...

Know what 5% (Boston's slice of the profit pie) of 290 million is? 14.5 million. So... 14.3 million to 14.5 million. Jacobs might as well close up shop on all his other ventures with that windfall.

Not exactly 7.7 million each in the end. Of course revenue sharing, pension contributions, etc... all come out of those figures before hand, and it's all just estimation based on past percentages but again, what else are we going to do?

Even after all this discussion I still find it extremely hard to believe Jacobs was behind the lockout in order to better line his own pockets. My math sucks though... soooo...

bigbadjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 07:00 AM
  #94
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbadjohn View Post
well, i'm not an accountant, i don't play one on tv and i didn't even stay at a holiday inn express last night, but... i'm not equating revenue with profits.

there are revenues and expenditures. by slicing the revenue pie up to take 7% back from players, the owners increased their revenues.

the increase in revenue sharing is an expenditure. in this case, the increase in that expenditure is less than the increase in revenue. a simple concept, i know you grasp.

profit is another story entirely and can be hidden in various ways, or at least left off the books. that's what accountants and tax lawyers are for.

the CBA was about the smaller struggling markets. the owners and players both want the teams to stay. someone was going to have to pay for that. the owners just didn't to be that someone, so they wanted to take back more from the players. all things are not equal from last year to this. the "solution" to the problem with the smaller markets was going to cost money. it came from the players, not the owners. that's a win for the owners.

i'd have preferred they take a look at their current revenue sharing and change the model to something that approaches the other professional sports they were so fond of comparing the revenue split with. the solution they came up with doesn't really solve the problem. and i'd like to think that deciding to lockout the players and put everyone through this nonsense once again, they would have actually solved the problem.

of course the problem with a more robust revenue sharing scheme is those who generate the revenue are reluctant to share it equally with those who do not. Mr. Jacobs is one of those who generates revenue. i'm just guessing here, but i'm pretty certain he's also one of those unlikely to be willing to share it.

i look forward to him stepping down from his "leadership" role within the NHL.
Fun fact, the NHLs new revenue sharing is very comparable to the NBA's new model. It will see them share similar funds (roughly 200 million) even though they bring in far less revenue.

More fun facts:

- the MLB shares roughly 5.3% of their league revenues (7.5billion revenue and an estimated 400 million in revenue sharing).
- the NBA shares roughly 4% of their league revenues between teams (5 billion revenue and an estimated 200 million in revenue sharing)
- the NHL shares roughly 6% of their league revenue (3.3 billion estimated revenue and an estimated 200 million in revenue sharing). Yes, a higher percentage then both the NBA and the MLB.

When people tend to follow this line of thinking, they are more often referring to the NFL revenue sharing model. Great model that suits the league, however that league is very unique among the professional sports in North America. They play a what... a 16 game season? They have national broadcast deals that themselves dwarf all of NHL revenues. The have a popularity that is completely unobtainable by the other majors sports leagues which equates to far far higher attendance, far far better merch sales, far far more lucrative TV deals, etc etc....

Here's a very good article on why the NFL revenue sharing model wouldn't work for the NBA and MLB, and it can easily be applied to Hockey as well:

Why NFL-Style Revenue Sharing Won't Work in the NBA

Quote:
Big Brother NFL is at it again with revenue sharing. Football teams split about 75% of all league revenue, which is the main reason teams like the Green Bay Packers are able to compete with large-market revenue-generating monsters like the Jets, Giants, Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots. Of course, the NFL plays just 16 games in a season, and all of those games are broadcast by national networks like CBS, NBC and ESPN. The bulk of the league's revenue comes from those national deals. Major League Baseball and NBA teams play a lot more games: 162 in baseball, 82 in basketball. The best teams in the league might appear on national television a dozen or so times; the worst teams might not make an appearance at all. The bulk of those leagues' games are carried by local broadcast partners... the YES Networks and MSGs and regional Fox Sports channels and NESNs of the world. And that's also where the bulk of the money is generated. And that's the fatal flaw with any NFL-style revenue sharing system.
Give it a read, there are more then a few other interesting tidbits in there.

Even more interesting:
Revenue sharing among NFL clubs plummets

Quote:
Wealthy NFL teams shared significantly less money in 2011 with financially challenged clubs than in previous years, the league told owners at their fall meeting in Chicago last week.

Previously, upward of $100 million was transferred annually to solve a financial disparity issue that the NFL wrestled with for well over a decade. In 2011, that figure plummeted to between $10 million and $15 million, multiple sources said.

....

“This seems to be indicative that, at this early stage, this CBA is working as the owners intended it to work,” said Scott Rosner, a sports business professor at Wharton School.

The shift puts the NFL in stark contrast to other major U.S. sports leagues, especially the NBA and NHL, which recently have moved to increase revenue sharing among clubs to help struggling teams.

When the NFL signed the new CBA 14 months ago, the league had hoped toward the end of the 10-year deal that it might be able to phase out this form of sharing, which it terms “supplemental revenue sharing.” It might reach that goal far quicker if the 2011 figure is any indication, especially given the increased media money set to start flowing into the league from the latest round of TV deals, which take effect in 2014.

By the end of the old CBA, players were getting a low 50 percent share of all revenue. That ratio, in the current deal, is now in the mid 40 percent range.
tldr: We are in agreement that the lockout was for the smaller market franchises, but in disagreement on where that money needed to come from. From what you've said it seems to me you may not be fully aware of the points above in regards to how other leagues share revenue. Maybe the above will give you pause.

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 07:40 AM
  #95
Scotto74
Moderator
 
Scotto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kingston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,357
vCash: 50
same old story here. Those that hate JJ say he made out great in the new CBA and wanted the lockout and ended up with a ton of cash in his pocket.

Those that think he is a good businessman and is good for the long term life of the NHL think he did it for the long term stability of one of his investments.

Funny how you know who will argue each side just by reading the thread title and twist the "facts" to fit their side.

__________________
Love the city, hate the Hab™


BOSTON STRONG!!!
Scotto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:03 AM
  #96
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotto74 View Post
same old story here. Those that hate JJ say he made out great in the new CBA and wanted the lockout and ended up with a ton of cash in his pocket.

Those that think he is a good businessman and is good for the long term life of the NHL think he did it for the long term stability of one of his investments.

Funny how you know who will argue each side just by reading the thread title and twist the "facts" to fit their side.
How was the October proposal similar to the one the players ultimately signed?

That was an outright lie.

I don't care about anything else he said. What is he supposed to say exactly besides that? He cares about public perception too. They all do. But the idea that the players waited two extra months for a deal they had in October is a lie. So much for moving forward.

EverettMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:09 AM
  #97
deliciouspie
the best post »»»»»
 
deliciouspie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: sf, austin, here
Country: United States
Posts: 2,778
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to deliciouspie
job creators, ladies and gentlemen

deliciouspie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:40 AM
  #98
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
How was the October proposal similar to the one the players ultimately signed?

That was an outright lie.

I don't care about anything else he said. What is he supposed to say exactly besides that? He cares about public perception too. They all do. But the idea that the players waited two extra months for a deal they had in October is a lie. So much for moving forward.
The final deal had some key elements players completely balked at back in October such as variance and term limits on contracts (which players refused to discuss outright), and a 50/50 revenue split right off the hop, probably the two biggest take aways for the NHL. In the PA's offers at the time they didn't get to 50/50 until year 5 of the CBA and only then if revenues continued to increase 5% yearly.

That said, both those key issues looked different in the NHL's October proposal. 5% variance on contracts became 35% with a 50% limit on the highest year. 5 year contract limits on UFA's, 6 for your own RFA's eventually became 7 year contract limits on UFA's and 8 on RFA's. I believe in the October proposal make whole was only at 150 million, which the NHL of course finally had to increase to 300 million in December.

In the NHL's October offer the term of the proposed CBA was 6 years with a mutual option for a 7th. The NHL eventually got this to 10 years because of the additional make whole money. Revenue sharing was also essentially the same as it is now. Trading cap space was also included although specifics not released.

Just for reference

October NHL offer

Players 3 October Counter Proposals

Breakdown of PA's proposal 1 and 2... #3 wasn't even worth analyzing

Kaoz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:46 AM
  #99
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
The vouchers are generous to the patrons, but ******* the concession workers getting screwed.

Please, for the love of god, tip and tip well.
Kate your heart is in the right place but asking folks to tip on a beer that is already marked up 500% (possibly more) is a little much.

What OUGHT to happen is for the man with the most money (Jacobs) to have a night where Jacobs gives all proceeds from sales to the concession workers. In your plan, you're asking the people least able to help the workers (the average fan) to help them. I know you mean well, but come on. It's like asking someone to tip their proctologist after their exam.

bp13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-22-2013, 09:50 AM
  #100
Scotto74
Moderator
 
Scotto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kingston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,357
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Kate your heart is in the right place but asking folks to tip on a beer that is already marked up 500% (possibly more) is a little much.

What OUGHT to happen is for the man with the most money (Jacobs) to have a night where Jacobs gives all proceeds from sales to the concession workers. In your plan, you're asking the people least able to help the workers (the average fan) to help them. I know you mean well, but come on. It's like asking someone to tip their proctologist after their exam.
you mean I should stop doing that?

Scotto74 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 01:57 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.