The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
New NHL proposal coming this week; NHL won't respond to counter unless salary cuts
They need to open their eyes then jesus christ, didn't the mega greedy nba stars agree on a 50/50 split...
50/50 makes the most sense ALL THE TIME...
**** the players.
The mega-greedy NBA stars agreed to much more than a 50/50 split. It is a little surprising that people want make comparisons based on numbers without any other data points.
First the NBA CBA has a soft cap and a luxury tax that allows teams to spend over the cap. A few other differences:
Revenue Split
Players receive 51.15 percent of BRI in 2011-12. In later seasons players receive 49 to 51 percent of BRI (50 percent, plus or minus 60.5 percent of the amount by which BRI exceeds or falls short of projections); 1 percent of BRI (from the players' share) is used to fund a new pool for post-career benefits. With this change there will be no rollback of salaries.
Revenue Sharing
A new plan approximately triples the amount of money that is revenue-shared.
Escrow
10 percent withheld in every season. If the escrow withholding is insufficient, the shortfall is taken out of the players' post-career benefits pool. Salaries are not adjusted the following season.
Minimum team salary
Teams must spend at least 85 percent of the cap in 2011-12 and 2012-13, and at least 90 percent of the cap in later years of the agreement.
Now if the NHL proposal of a 54/46 split of HRR contained some of these provision, then maybe a comparison to the NBA might make some sense. But the proposal didn't so there is no comparison.
A 50/50 split is fine...except the owners are trying to change what equates to "revenue" and thus what has to be split 50/50 with the players.
If the owners got the change they want, a "50/50" split is actually much more favorable to the owners (to no surprise).
All leagues have their own definition of revenue (yes, they are varying degrees), which makes sense, not all revenue in the arena is strictly derived from hockey.
Actually, your comment is nonsense. Joe Fan doesn't care about the players, he cares about his TEAM. His team is defined by the crest on the front of the jersey, not the name written on the back of it. As fans, are loyalties usually lie in the franchise we support, not towards any particular player. The franchises are part of the NHL brand, are they not?
Really, well I suggest you haven't gone to too many games or read many of the team forums on this board.
Of course fans cheer for their team, but it is the players on the team they identify with. Its the player they love, or love to hate.
NHL sweaters with various crests and colours, worn by the fans fill arenas nightly.
In all my years of attending NHL games I have never seen an NHL sweater with the club name across the back, or the owner, or the GM.
All leagues have their own definition of revenue (yes, they are varying degrees), which makes sense, not all revenue in the arena is strictly derived from hockey.
Arena luxury boxes and premium seats that corporations/people buy for the season and use for concerts and NBA games. Depending on ownership only 1/3 or 2/3 of revenues are HRR. Also some revenues are net of costs (paying for parking attendants) well others aren't, so it's not as clear cut as thing seem as a fan.
ps. I'm being vague but its Friday, and I don't have the CBA in front of me.
Really, well I suggest you haven't gone to too many games or read many of the team forums on this board.
Of course fans cheer for their team, but it is the players on the team they identify with. Its the player they love, or love to hate.
NHL sweaters with various crests and colours, worn by the fans fill arenas nightly.
In all my years of attending NHL games I have never seen an NHL sweater with the club name across the back, or the owner, or the GM.
Goodness, you're going to great lenghts to defend a poor comment you made earlier.
Fans do grow an attachment to players but they don't prioritize their loyalty to that player over the team (in most cases). I'm starting to think you want to pretend you don't understand because otherwise you'd have to admit your folly with your previous comments. If a player is traded or retires, fans don't usually stop watching the game. Fans can still support the player and wish them the best but usually they won't put the player's success above their team's success. You're telling me that maybe I haven't gone to many games or read many of the team forums on this board - right in this very thread are other fans that are telling you that they support their TEAM and they support the NHL brand. There are fans right in this thread that agree with me so I guess maybe I can suggest that you don't go to many games or read much on this forum, right?
Of course you don't see the club name across the back Einstein, the club name/logo is already ON THE FRONT!!! How dumb...
You're honestly very shortsighted if you can't give recognition to the people who invest their money into these players all because you don't SEE them.
Last edited by HockeyCrazed101: 08-31-2012 at 07:51 PM.
It's not as if the GMs/owners sit down with a pile of money telling the player to sign on the dotted line, as you would have us all believe.
If you think the players aren't half accountable for contracts, you're out of your mind.
I don't know why people act like the owners WANT to throw 100 million at a player. Ultimately it is their decision but options are to take the financial risk and hope that talented players improve the team which in turn improve overall revenue or they walk away, continue letting their team to dwell in mediocrity which in turn does nothing to help the overall revenue. Yes, the owners cannot be exempt from the decision they make to sign players to the amounts that they do but the players use league offers to set their demands. Just because it isn't explicit doesn't mean that those demands don't exist.
NHL players should just all sign in the ECHL for millions, owners will willingly give them that because NBC will pick up the TV rights, fans will buy plenty of Alaska Aces and Victoria River Kings merchandise, and fans will flock to the rinks where possible. Joe Fan will be ok with this right?
Not sure what point your trying to make, but it is probably in the same category as this.
NHL teams bring in their ECHL affiliate teams on current salary scale, put them in NHL jerseys, then charge NHL prices for sponsorships, TV rights and tickets. At year end wonder why they lost money and why Joe Fan doesn't show up to support the crest on the front of the jersey.
