HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Everyone who thinks everything is so great in NFL-land....

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-16-2004, 09:35 AM
  #26
rekrul
Registered User
 
rekrul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: bittersville,ca
Country: United States
Posts: 1,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
So I'll ask again, and no one can ever give an answer:

Since caps don't prevent the highest paid players from raking in the big bucks, and caps don't work, and rich stupid owners circumvent them all the time, then why is the NHLPA flushing at least a billion dollars in salary down the toilet to fight one?
stop making sence my head hurts!

rekrul is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:40 AM
  #27
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
for example, allow the Giants to charge $67 per ticket on average, while Jacksonville sells tickets for an average $40 each. Multiply that by 70,000 seats and 10 games (including pre-season) and that's about $19 million a year in the Giants pockets. That doesn't even take into consideration the differences in luxury box sales, parking, concessions, sponsorships, etc.
My understanding is NFL owners share all (or a very large percentage) gate revenue......but lux boxes are their own to keep....this is why every owner of a team in a older stadium wants a new one....with many lux suites.....but the main gate $ is divided via revenue sharing

Mothra is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:42 AM
  #28
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,419
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mothra
My understanding is NFL owners share all (or a very large percentage) gate revenue......but lux boxes are their own to keep....this is why every owner of a team in a older stadium wants a new one....with many lux suites.....but the main gate $ is divided via revenue sharing
They share 40% of gate receipts.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:46 AM
  #29
The Kitner Boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
The fact remains that the NFL has no small market teams, thus their cap is not in place to protect any. This makes its goal different from the NHL's.
How about Green Bay? The Carolina Panthers play in Charlotte, which is a big city, but not in the class of LA or NY. The NHL has all the potential in the world if it is marketed correctly and they put a quality product on the ice every night.

The Kitner Boy is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:50 AM
  #30
Mothra
The Groovy Guru
 
Mothra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 7,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
They share 40% of gate receipts.

gotcha.....I thought it was more but obvioulsy not. Still a pretty good chunk....

I think the NHL needs to have some sort of similar setup

Mothra is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 09:56 AM
  #31
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MR. X
How about Green Bay? The Carolina Panthers play in Charlotte, which is a big city, but not in the class of LA or NY. The NHL has all the potential in the world if it is marketed correctly and they put a quality product on the ice every night.
What about Green Bay and Charlotte? The revenue they generate means they are not a "small market" team.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:16 PM
  #32
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
What about Green Bay and Charlotte? The revenue they generate means they are not a "small market" team.
So to you market size is not a comparative value, but a set one determined by a set revenue figure? Interesting.
Bottom line is that the Packers and Panthers earn less revenue than the Giants and Bears. Thus, comparatively speaking, they are "small market" in the world of the NFL.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:27 PM
  #33
HckyFght*
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to HckyFght*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go Flames Go
Gene Upshaw still wants a salary cap and is scared the players might loose it. I think all he wants is some other revenue source to be included in the % to players that is all. NFL will still be the best run league for years to come.
Fox Sports lost 380$ mil on the NFL last year.
-HckyFght

HckyFght* is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:52 PM
  #34
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
Fox Sports lost 380$ mil on the NFL last year.
-HckyFght
Another excellent point no one brings up. The networks lose a ton on their NFL deals. The sign them for the prestige.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 12:54 PM
  #35
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
So to you market size is not a comparative value, but a set one determined by a set revenue figure? Interesting.
Bottom line is that the Packers and Panthers earn less revenue than the Giants and Bears. Thus, comparatively speaking, they are "small market" in the world of the NFL.
How can Detoit be considered a small market in baseball and a big market in hockey?

The Packers might earn less, they might earn more. The disparities in the NFL are not significant and would not create a competitive imbalance if there were no cap.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 03:46 PM
  #36
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 59,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
How can Detoit be considered a small market in baseball and a big market in hockey?

The Packers might earn less, they might earn more. The disparities in the NFL are not significant and would not create a competitive imbalance if there were no cap.
This is because teams like "big market" and "small market" are buzzwords, not actual terms. People change their meaning depending on what is more convenient to make their points.

Epsilon is online now  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:23 PM
  #37
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
Another excellent point no one brings up. The networks lose a ton on their NFL deals. The sign them for the prestige.
Which isn't really a concern for the NFL. If the networks should happen to come to their senses and offer half a billion dollars less, the cap will still keep expenses in check.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:29 PM
  #38
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HckyFght
Fox Sports lost 380$ mil on the NFL last year.
-HckyFght
From their Levitt report? Maybe they need to give their announcers a salary cap. Fox is willing to have losses on its designated football property?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:37 PM
  #39
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
So I'll ask again, and no one can ever give an answer:

Since caps don't prevent the highest paid players from raking in the big bucks, and caps don't work, and rich stupid owners circumvent them all the time, then why is the NHLPA flushing at least a billion dollars in salary down the toilet to fight one?
Heh. But I can ask right back at ya. WHy fight for such an ineffective principle as the saving grace when you realize it wont solve the problems you argue its needed for?

Its not just about allowing the highest paid players to get the big bucks, its also for allowing players like Madden, or Perrault, or Mike Fisher to get their value to a team. Or Laraque, Keane, Sillinger. The cap is much more than just the salaries which the players have already agreed to cut. The players have already offered to drop their avg salary from $1.8 to $1.3 as the owners asked and yet its not good enough. It must be about more than just the money owners want. Its the control of the labour market as we do in our fantasy leagues. But its a real labour market with real peoples lives.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-16-2004, 10:43 PM
  #40
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
So to you market size is not a comparative value, but a set one determined by a set revenue figure? Interesting.
Bottom line is that the Packers and Panthers earn less revenue than the Giants and Bears. Thus, comparatively speaking, they are "small market" in the world of the NFL.
THe NHL owners when determining their revenue sharing criteria were considering using a number like 2.5 million televisions in their rights territory as the cutoff for receiving revenue sharing. Is that how to best define big market?

From the link i posted above
Quote:
There is no such thing as a "small market" in football.

One of the vox populi arguments for the NFL is that teams in its smallest cities--Green Bay, Jacksonville, Minneapolis--are competitive. It's a nice thought, but the fact is, where an NFL team plays is essentially irrelevant. With the national-TV contract bringing in so much money, all that's left is to fill a stadium eight days a year. The population base required to sustain an NFL team is probably one-tenth that needed to sustain an MLB franchise, when you consider the limited number of home dates and the greater percentage of seats sold via season tickets.

If anything, the NFL's system has led to some real absurdities. One Los Angeles team moved to Oakland, another to St. Louis. The team in Houston moved to Memphis. If "markets" mattered, these things would never happen. Essentially, NFL games are studio events, and where the studios happen to be located isn't important, as long as there are 80,000 interested parties within an hour's drive
Most hockey teams had more paid tickets to their events over the course of a season than NFL did

thinkwild is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 08:09 AM
  #41
hockeytown9321
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild

Most hockey teams had more paid tickets to their events over the course of a season than NFL did

If you break down the numbers, the NHL actually has better attendance than the NFL on a per game basis.

hockeytown9321 is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 02:23 PM
  #42
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
If you break down the numbers, the NHL actually has better attendance than the NFL on a per game basis.
Huh? I'm going to assume this was a mistake.
So far this year, the lowest attendance average in the NFL is 55,590 by the Saints. That's more than double what the NHL's best, Montreal at 20,555, averaged last year.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 02:24 PM
  #43
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Heh. But I can ask right back at ya. WHy fight for such an ineffective principle as the saving grace when you realize it wont solve the problems you argue its needed for?
The easy answer taken from the posts here is "Because the owners are stupid."

It provides hope. They fight for the system because they hope it will work. Time has shown again and again that it won't, but you don't give up hope.

It's the same reason the Dunahee family keeps little Michael's room exactly the way it was when he was abducted 20 years ago, in the hope that he's going to come waltzing through the door.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 02:25 PM
  #44
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Huh? I'm going to assume this was a mistake.
So far this year, the lowest attendance average in the NFL is 55,590 by the Saints. That's more than double what the NHL's best, Montreal at 20,555, averaged last year.
You might want to think about the number of games per season in each sport.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 02:26 PM
  #45
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild
Most hockey teams had more paid tickets to their events over the course of a season than NFL did
Perhaps that has something to do with the fact NHL teams play 66 more games per season. Maybe.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 05:27 PM
  #46
Impossibles
Registered User
 
Impossibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Langley, BC
Country: British Antarctic Territory
Posts: 6,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsguyone
All NHL/NFL comparisoms are irrelevant.

If there were only one league that didn't need a cap, it would be the NFL.

Pointing to their cap and siting it as a reason for the league's success is pure, unadultered folly.

Success is owed to this and this only: America's love for football, American's dedication to watching football, American business' willingness to spend tons of cash on advertisements during NFL football broadcasts.
So wrong.

All you have to look at is the success the cap allows the Pittsburgh Steelers to have versus the Pittsburgh Pirates. You cannot say that america doesn't love baseball as much. The cap allows all NFL fans to have a chance at winning it all (well, except Arizona).

Impossibles is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 05:46 PM
  #47
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossibles
The cap allows all NFL fans to have a chance at winning it all (well, except Arizona).
One assumes you mean all NFL teams, not fans, though certainly some fans inject themselves to that exaggerated extent into their team's fortune.

Indeed, all NFL teams have a chance to win, as you state. Because the gloriously restrictive economic system in the NFL has forced parity. Mediocrity. Many people love sameness, obviously. That's cool. Just don't deny that it exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
...it's undeniable that some teams do make more than others and without a cap those teams - as they do in uncapped leagues - will use that advantage to make themselves better on the field of play.
As has been proven out by the big payroll Blues, Rangers, Leafs and Flyers using their economic advantage to achieve greater success in recent years than the Sabres, Hurricanes, Ducks, Lightning and Flames. You know, all those "fluky, one-year wonders"? Hmmm, better to be a economic one-year wonder than a high-priced no-year wonder.

In a league where the competitive zenith is the Stanley Cup (and nothing else), there are more than a few examples of teams with lesser resources having achieved more than others who have expended resources unwisely. Just have to open one's eyes and acknowledge the facts. (Likewise, teams with resources, who have repeatedly made shrewd mangement decisions have won, regularly, i.e., Colorado, Detroit, NJD.)

Undeniable, indeed.


Last edited by Trottier: 12-18-2004 at 02:02 AM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 06:06 PM
  #48
YellHockey*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Impossibles
All you have to look at is the success the cap allows the Pittsburgh Steelers to have versus the Pittsburgh Pirates. You cannot say that america doesn't love baseball as much. The cap allows all NFL fans to have a chance at winning it all (well, except Arizona).
Is it the cap or is it extensive revenue sharing?

The revenue sharing levels the financial playing field.

YellHockey* is offline  
Old
12-17-2004, 07:47 PM
  #49
Impossibles
Registered User
 
Impossibles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Langley, BC
Country: British Antarctic Territory
Posts: 6,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
Is it the cap or is it extensive revenue sharing?

The revenue sharing levels the financial playing field.
Both, you're right. I didn't mention that. I think they have to go hand in hand. You can't have a cap without significant revenue sharing.

Impossibles is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.