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.

Suter Calls Out Leipold re: Contract Roll Backs

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2012, 06:47 PM
  #176
CombatOnContact
 
CombatOnContact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Malaysia
Posts: 16,003
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to CombatOnContact
I find it hard to believe that all these deals were signed under the expectation they were guaranteed to be unaffected by the upcoming cba expiration. Makes more sense all involved were fully aware of the situation and that changes to the contract were possible. For Suter to come out now and say this makes him look foolish, childish, and very naive.

CombatOnContact is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 06:50 PM
  #177
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unifiedtheory View Post
Someone tell Leipold that he is obligated to pay the contract according to the terms HE agreed on and HE signed.

The hard line owners (of which Jeremy Jacobs is the leader) are beginning to sicken me.

I would like to ask Craig Leipold this:

Company "A" agrees to a 5 year advertising contract with the Predators. After two years Company "A" looks at T.V. ratings and see's they are lower than they were anticipating. Meaning far less eyes are on their advertising than they paid for.

If Company "A" went to Leipold and said "we want some of our money back", what do you think Leipold would say? Would he commiserate with them? Would he give them money back? Hell no, he would groan on about a "contract" and call his fleet of lawyers.

Hypocrite.

We need MODERATE owner's to bring sanity to the negotiations. Just like the NFL had Bob Kraft (who I despise) come in and be the voice of reason the NHL needs the Mike Ilich's of the World to be a voice of reason. If Jacobs and his ilk continue to run the agenda we will see no movement and no CBA. They don't give a flying **** about "the good of the game", "the fans" or anything else. They want to break the union, squeeze every cent out of the union they can and WIN. They don't want to look like they lost or gave back anything.

Yes, the union has a place at the "idiot" table as well. The foot dragging they are doing is maddening. That said, the NHL and the Board got this process off to a horrible start with their initial offer, which was laughable. They went below low balling and "poisoned the well" on day 1 of the negotiations.

Gary Bettman has NO CLUE how to negotiate. His track record proves it. Lowball, threaten, lock players out, hope they break and claim victory. That is not "good faith".
Hypocrisy is irrelevant here. Refer to my statement. The term of his deal with Minnesota extended beyond the past CBA. Therefore, he was leaving himself open to conditions of the new CBA. That is all.

DuklaNation is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:12 PM
  #178
billybudd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 8,061
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
If Leipold told Suter during the negotiations that the owners were going to keep the HRR % close to 57, then yes, Suter has a legitimate complaint. I can't imagine a world where Leipold would have told Suter that before he signed a contract and Suter's agent would have done a tremendous disservice to his client if he didn't tell Suter that the next CBA could lower his contract value for a few seasons.
You aren't understanding. Suter doesn't say anything about Leipold telling him the details of the next CBA beyond strongly hinting that Leipold told him there wouldn't be a reduction in the dollar value in SUTER'S CONTRACT through collective bargaining. Suter doesn't say Leipold told him anything about percentages leaguewide. Just that he, Ryan Suter, would get the money he agreed on.

I will repeat this: Suter says when he signed his deal, Leipold told him there would be no rollback attempt. Very soon after, Leipold made a rollback attempt. This is why Ryan Suter is mad.

Unless Suter's lying (and, frankly, I doubt he is, considering Leipold's long record of being a lying, despicable beggar who has tried to screw everyone from the city of Nashville to Gary Bettman in his crooked dealings), Leipold negotiated this deal in bad faith, considering he was instrumental in two attempts--one coming 3 weeks after the ink dried on Suter's deal--to backdoor in a flat reduction of Suter's contract.

People are getting too caught up on 'sides.' Because it's foolish for the PA to reject Bettman's last offer and insulting to still be trying to de-link revenues 7 years after that concept disappeared from hockey permanently, does not make Craig Leipold an honest man.

billybudd is online now  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:23 PM
  #179
jeety mcjeet
Registered User
 
jeety mcjeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
You aren't understanding. Suter doesn't say anything about Leipold telling him the details of the next CBA beyond strongly hinting that Leipold told him there wouldn't be a reduction in the dollar value in SUTER'S CONTRACT through collective bargaining. Suter doesn't say Leipold told him anything about percentages leaguewide. Just that he, Ryan Suter, would get the money he agreed on.

I will repeat this: Suter says when he signed his deal, Leipold told him there would be no rollback attempt. Very soon after, Leipold made a rollback attempt. This is why Ryan Suter is mad.
Technically it isn't a roll back but rather it is escrow. But if he said that to Suter that's slimy. I would have a hard time working for him after that

jeety mcjeet is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:37 PM
  #180
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
You aren't understanding. Suter doesn't say anything about Leipold telling him the details of the next CBA beyond strongly hinting that Leipold told him there wouldn't be a reduction in the dollar value in SUTER'S CONTRACT through collective bargaining. Suter doesn't say Leipold told him anything about percentages leaguewide. Just that he, Ryan Suter, would get the money he agreed on.

I will repeat this: Suter says when he signed his deal, Leipold told him there would be no rollback attempt. Very soon after, Leipold made a rollback attempt. This is why Ryan Suter is mad.

Unless Suter's lying (and, frankly, I doubt he is, considering Leipold's long record of being a lying, despicable beggar who has tried to screw everyone from the city of Nashville to Gary Bettman in his crooked dealings), Leipold negotiated this deal in bad faith, considering he was instrumental in two attempts--one coming 3 weeks after the ink dried on Suter's deal--to backdoor in a flat reduction of Suter's contract.

People are getting too caught up on 'sides.' Because it's foolish for the PA to reject Bettman's last offer and insulting to still be trying to de-link revenues 7 years after that concept disappeared from hockey permanently, does not make Craig Leipold an honest man.
If Leipold lied to Ryan Suter, I guess Ryan Suter should be mad about that. There's no evidence of it that I find credible. I haven't heard a single player speak about the CBA negotiations in such a way as suggested they had a firm understanding of what was being negotiated. Just because Ryan Suter cries foul now, in the midst of a chorus of players crying about everything from the fact that 57=50 to how revenues=profit, doesn't convince me that this happened precisely the way Suter is alleging. But whatever. Nor should it particularly matter even if it did. Maybe Leipold had no intention of asking for a rollback. He's one owner out of thirty. That doesn't necessarily make him a liar. Furthermore, even if Leipold lied, if Ryan Suter really thought the owners were going to go into these negotiations ready to pay 57% next year, somebody badly advised him.

But big picture: who cares? It doesn't make the players any more deserving, or the owners less deserving. It doesn't change the financials of the league. It doesn't give anybody better leverage. It's just a good opportunity, if you like hearsay, to figure some owner is a jerk. So, if you like hearsay, go ahead.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:38 PM
  #181
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
You aren't understanding. Suter doesn't say anything about Leipold telling him the details of the next CBA beyond strongly hinting that Leipold told him there wouldn't be a reduction in the dollar value in SUTER'S CONTRACT through collective bargaining. Suter doesn't say Leipold told him anything about percentages leaguewide. Just that he, Ryan Suter, would get the money he agreed on.

I will repeat this: Suter says when he signed his deal, Leipold told him there would be no rollback attempt. Very soon after, Leipold made a rollback attempt. This is why Ryan Suter is mad.

Unless Suter's lying (and, frankly, I doubt he is, considering Leipold's long record of being a lying, despicable beggar who has tried to screw everyone from the city of Nashville to Gary Bettman in his crooked dealings), Leipold negotiated this deal in bad faith, considering he was instrumental in two attempts--one coming 3 weeks after the ink dried on Suter's deal--to backdoor in a flat reduction of Suter's contract.

People are getting too caught up on 'sides.' Because it's foolish for the PA to reject Bettman's last offer and insulting to still be trying to de-link revenues 7 years after that concept disappeared from hockey permanently, does not make Craig Leipold an honest man.
How in the world is Leipold supposed to know exactly what the NHL/BOG is going to negotiate for in a new CBA?

Contracts signed would be subject to a new CBA, doesn't matter if they were signed 1 day before the CBA expired or 2 years before.

Suter knew (or should've known) this damn well. No owner in the NHL can give any player a guarantee that the next CBA is going to be X/Y/Z unless they have a DeLorean time machine.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:45 PM
  #182
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 16,650
vCash: 50
If Suter wanted every dollar paid in an escrowless system why did he sign in the NHL? He could have signed elsewhere, no excuses for being dumb.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:46 PM
  #183
charliolemieux
No Lu-wiki Zone
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,475
vCash: 500
Everyone knew a new CBA was coming. If hte owners knew they would be asking for a 24% rollback again and offered contracts assuming that would be true I am glad to see them get burnt.

At the same time these players could have not signed anywhere and waited for a new CBA to be signed before they agreed to a deal.

They signed contracts under the old CBA due to greed because they knew the 14yr deals were going to be on the chopping block. So I have no sympathy for them if they are subject to a rollback under the new CBA.

I just want hockey.

charliolemieux is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:56 PM
  #184
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,425
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
This is a league run by the poor teams. It's pretty disgraceful. If they can't afford these contracts THAT THEY ARE GIVING OUT, then perhaps such teams should simply be contracted.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
"Okay, Joel. You've had your fun. Give your brother his pads back." - Trxjw
Bird Law is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:57 PM
  #185
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
If Suter wanted every dollar paid in an escrowless system why did he sign in the NHL? He could have signed elsewhere, no excuses for being dumb.
Seriously. It's not beholden on owners to pay players on terms that they only imagined they contracted to. There's a ******* contract. It's written down. If you think someone's violating it, go get your lawyer and get mother****ing paid.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 07:57 PM
  #186
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
This is a league run by the poor teams. It's pretty disgraceful. If they can't afford these contracts THAT THEY ARE GIVING OUT, then perhaps such teams should simply be contracted.
Except the NHLPA would be first in line to block any contraction.

Can't be folding up 100+ jobs.

NHL would go on just fine if you removed 4+ teams.

Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:00 PM
  #187
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,425
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigcaulks View Post
Man would the players love that idea, let's cut 200 jobs!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Except the NHLPA would be first in line to block any contraction.

Can't be folding up 100+ jobs.
I realize that. Hence perhaps the poor teams should, oh I don't know, reign in their ****ing spending?

This is just like the financial collapse.

"Oh, honey. Let's go buy a McMansion and three Range Rovers."

Two years later . . .

"Give me money, government! Save me from myself!"

I have absolutely zero sympathy for morons who spend beyond their means and then expect someone else to bail them out for their own mistakes. The funny thing is these owners KNEW that they were poor (unlike Bob and Mary in the suburbs who thought they'd be fine paying off their loans). And they STILL spent this outrageous kind of money expecting to be bailed out by the league.

Bird Law is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:00 PM
  #188
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Rather than disagreeing or agreeing with him, I think it's a major breakthrough because this is the first time I can remember that a player has criticized his own owner.

For the sake of entertainment, I hope others say the same but less diplomatically.
Leopold must be absolutely furious at Suter right now for questioning his authority and honesty given the fact that all contracts were subject to the CBA.

I'd be very surprised if those owners have ever been criticized by their own employees in public so I doubt the owners will break first.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:01 PM
  #189
Tommy Hawk
Registered User
 
Tommy Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Avalanche View Post
15% is more than few millions..
15% of 10 miil a year is only 1.5 mil a year.....

Tommy Hawk is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:02 PM
  #190
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I realize that. Hence perhaps the poor teams should, oh I don't know, reign in their ****ing spending?

This is just like the financial collapse.

"Oh, honey. Let's go buy a McMansion and three Range Rovers."

Two years later . . .

"Give me money, government! Save me from myself!"

I have absolutely zero sympathy for morons who spend beyond their means and then expect someone else to bail them out for their own mistakes. The funny thing is these owners KNEW that they were poor (unlike Bob and Mary in the suburbs who thought they'd be fine paying off their loans). And they STILL spent this outrageous kind of money expecting to be bailed out by the league.
Who's expecting to be bailed out? Phoenix has one of the lowest payrolls in the league.

The teams with the higher payrolls are not the ones asking to be subsidized.

The players are cashing in on a system that favors them, to make a profit in the NHL you need to have a half-way decent team (ie: playoff contender) unless you are Toronto. NHL owners do not have the luxury of monster TV contracts and major sponsorship deals like the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. get.

They need to make their money at the gate. So of course they're going to spend on talent, it's far and away the best tool they have to bring people to the rink every night (a good team). In that environment there's always going to be "overspending", which predictably the players will obviously cash in on.

I think saying GMs are irresponsible is a pretty simplified and not entirely accurate read of the situation. It's easy to say that when it's not your franchise that has declining attendance and you're the one under pressure to do something about it, and you are bargaining with a player you know could really turn that around or even win you that 1-3 extra games. That can be the difference between a playoff spot and making money for the season, versus missing the playoffs for the 3rd or 4th year in a row.


Last edited by Soundwave: 10-27-2012 at 08:11 PM.
Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:03 PM
  #191
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
Leopold must be absolutely furious at Suter right now for questioning his authority and honesty given the fact that all contracts were subject to the CBA.

I'd be very surprised if those owners have ever been criticized by their own employees in public so I doubt the owners will break first.
If the owners forced a terrible deal on the players, I wouldn't blame the ones with long term deals to comeback at half speed.

Confucius is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:04 PM
  #192
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
This is a league run by the poor teams. It's pretty disgraceful. If they can't afford these contracts THAT THEY ARE GIVING OUT, then perhaps such teams should simply be contracted.
Okay, for the 1000x time, here's why teams give out contracts they can't afford and why it makes no sense to blame the owners for it.

(1) If they try to impose a budget just on themselves alone, someone else will buy up their good players, take advantage of them, they won't be able to compete in FA, they become a feeder team circa the Buffalo Sabres losing every all-star on their roster from 2007-08.

(2) If they try to convince other teams not to take advantage of them, so we all keep our payrolls reasonable, it's collusion and they go to jail.

The only legal way they have of avoiding this collective action problem is to negotiate to change the way the market they're in works. Which is exactly what they're doing.

But hey, if you'd rather watch a 20 team league with no national exposure than live with the moral injustice of knowing players are only being paid 3% more than the NFL, probably ~5% more than in baseball and the same as basketball, be my guest. I guess it's a smarter idea to destroy the half of the league that's below water than force anybody to accept a 12% pay cut (with the strong odds that they'll make it up in 2-3 years).

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:04 PM
  #193
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,425
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundwave View Post
Who's expecting to be bailed out? Phoenix has one of the lowest payrolls in the league.

The teams with the higher payrolls are not the ones asking to be subsidized.
Uh, the ones with the higher revenues are the ones that generally make money or they are the ones that are like the borrowing morons in my example. And if they are part of the latter, then they are the teams that are asking for salary rollbacks, etc. (ala Boston and Minnesota).

They are the ones spending out of control hoping for the NHL to bail them out of their spending with salary rollbacks, reduced caps, etc. It's pathetic.

Bird Law is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:05 PM
  #194
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NoVA / NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 67,425
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, for the 1000x time, here's why teams give out contracts they can't afford and why it makes no sense to blame the owners for it.
I stopped reading after this because it's a ridiculous assertion. The ones that spend like drunken sailors only asking to be bailed out deserve no blame. Unbelievable.

Bird Law is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:06 PM
  #195
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,603
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CombatOnContact View Post
I find it hard to believe that all these deals were signed under the expectation they were guaranteed to be unaffected by the upcoming cba expiration. Makes more sense all involved were fully aware of the situation and that changes to the contract were possible. For Suter to come out now and say this makes him look foolish, childish, and very naive.
Like I said before, those high school dropouts have no understanding of the last CBA's conditions. Why did Suter's agent get him 20M in bonuses instead of all in salary? I don't think Suter know but he can't blame the owners because he signed that contract.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:13 PM
  #196
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
If the owners forced a terrible deal on the players, I wouldn't blame the ones with long term deals to comeback at half speed.
...Work to Rule. Egg timer in their pants. Shifts up every 45 seconds. Regardless of the play on the ice, just stop dead & skate to the bench. Re-set. Have a drink of water. Re-adjust ipod headphones.

Killion is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:14 PM
  #197
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Rather than disagreeing or agreeing with him, I think it's a major breakthrough because this is the first time I can remember that a player has criticized his own owner.

For the sake of entertainment, I hope others say the same but less diplomatically.
No kidding...so far the lockout has been painful. The players' whining about Bettman is painful to listen to...but listening to them taking shots at the specific owners would be entertaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legionnaire11 View Post
are you good with the owners also criticizing their players for not living up to contracts?
How are the players not living up to their contracts? The owners locked them out.

UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:14 PM
  #198
Soundwave
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,854
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I stopped reading after this because it's a ridiculous assertion. The ones that spend like drunken sailors only asking to be bailed out deserve no blame. Unbelievable.
I think this characterization is false.

No one is spending like drunken sailors just for fun, every GM is operating in a hyper competitive environment and the players are taking full advantage of that with monstrous pay raises every chance they get.

The owners also aren't asking to be "bailed out". They're asking for a 50-50 split which is comparable to every other major pro sport in the US ... NBA, MLB, NFL ... and by the way those players in those sports actually draw something called TV ratings in the US (apparently NHL players don't need to do this), meaning they bring a lot more to the table than their NHL counterparts do.

Lets see you run a team and ice a competitive product on the ice that sells a good number of tickets on a "responsible" $50 million dollar payroll without overpaying to keep any of your core talent.


Last edited by Soundwave: 10-27-2012 at 08:21 PM.
Soundwave is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:32 PM
  #199
HabsThanatos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 60
vCash: 500
MOD

Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Okay, for the 1000x time, here's why teams give out contracts they can't afford and why it makes no sense to blame the owners for it.

(1) If they try to impose a budget just on themselves alone, someone else will buy up their good players, take advantage of them, they won't be able to compete in FA, they become a feeder team circa the Buffalo Sabres losing every all-star on their roster from 2007-08.

(2) If they try to convince other teams not to take advantage of them, so we all keep our payrolls reasonable, it's collusion and they go to jail.

The only legal way they have of avoiding this collective action problem is to negotiate to change the way the market they're in works. Which is exactly what they're doing.

But hey, if you'd rather watch a 20 team league with no national exposure than live with the moral injustice of knowing players are only being paid 3% more than the NFL, probably ~5% more than in baseball and the same as basketball, be my guest. I guess it's a smarter idea to destroy the half of the league that's below water than force anybody to accept a 12% pay cut (with the strong odds that they'll make it up in 2-3 years).
Thank you for repeating this - people need to be reminded why owners don't want a free market. Counterpoint:

- Why is being a "feeder team" so bad? The owner is still making a profit. Isn't that what owning a business is about?

- There are other ways to deal with this problem than cutting player share. Gate revenue sharing ala NFL I'm looking at you.


Last edited by Fugu: 10-27-2012 at 09:43 PM. Reason: qdp
HabsThanatos is offline  
Old
10-27-2012, 08:45 PM
  #200
haseoke39
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsThanatos View Post

- Why is being a "feeder team" so bad? The owner is still making a profit. Isn't that what owning a business is about?

- There are other ways to deal with this problem than cutting player share. Gate revenue sharing ala NFL I'm looking at you.
(1) Hypothetically, a feeder team could make a profit indefinitely, but it's unlikely. Miss the playoffs enough, especially in weak markets (which are the ones likely to be facing cost constraints in the first place), and your profit disappears. Fans stay away. Phoenix happens. Not to mention you lose some of the national marketability that leagues tend to get when they have a wide, shifting body of contenders.

(2) First off, the median team is losing money. The average team does not make enough to be considered a reasonable return on investment anywhere outside the NHL. The first order problem, then, is growing profit across all owners, which you can only do by cutting player costs or growing revenues while holding player costs constant (the same thing in a system with linkage).

So revenue sharing can't solve the problem by itself. But I'm glad you brought up the NFL, because that gives us a good opportunity to analyze the differences between the NHL and NFL. For revenue sharing to take a big bite out of the NHL's problems, you'd be looking at basically pillaging 3-4 teams to try and keep half the league above water. No other sport does this. The NFL, you rightly note, has a much larger revenue sharing pool. But that doesn't necessarily reflect how much money actually transfers from rich teams to poor ones. Every team puts in something in the NFL, and then every team takes something out. They get to say the RS pot is huge, but most teams end up taking back a lot of their own money. The NFL doesn't have Green Bay, NYG and the Patriots paying for 16 franchises to operate in the red. And it's smart that they don't, because you'd never get those owners to agree to do so. The NHL shouldn't expect as much, either.

haseoke39 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 03:37 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.