HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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.

List All the Possible Revenue that we all know of.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-07-2005, 08:26 AM
  #76
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster
Here is the defintion from the NBA:


http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#12

In the NFL it is called DGR (Defined Gross Revenues)


http://www.nflpa.org/Members/main.as...Complete#art24

No problem the NHL and NHLPA should be able to hammer this puppy out in what? - a couple of hours - once the NHL owners disclose all the books for the teams and related entitites and all sources of potential revenues so it can be examined and determined if it should be included as HRI (Hockey Related Income).
Are you being facetious?

Seriously, though, it wouldn't be as hard as you suggest. The NHL has two clear and successful models to follow and would simply need to pick which works out best for them.

As for opening the books, that can be done after the two sides agree on what revenue is to be shared. No sense, for example, in making Bill Wirtz disclose how much he receives from stadium naming rights if that's not to be included in the shared revenue.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 09:04 AM
  #77
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smail
You see the problem is that if you include that parking revenue, Tom Hicks just has to sell it to someone else for a now profit and then the revenue won't be included anymore.

What you don't want to do with the "profit sharing" is make it so that the owners would rather sell the extras for now profit to cut down on shared revenues. It just doesn't make sense. If you penalize someone because he's also the owner of this and that, he'll just sell it right now for a profit that will go all to his pockets and reduce future revenues. You have to be careful with this.

Another example is the rink revenues. If there is no point for the owner to possess an arena, then they will just lease it and leave it to someone else and the revenue won't be counted then. That's why I said to allow revenues you need to verify what the advantages would be if it was independantly owned. Good accounting firms will be able to do that and to justify their choices based on general accounting/fiscal principles.

I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 09:14 AM
  #78
eye
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around the 49th para
Posts: 1,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.
Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.

eye is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 09:24 AM
  #79
Russian Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,475
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Russian Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.
Well it depends on many factor.

Bill Wirtz divide his hockey empire into 24 businesses. How can you defined revenue when you make it so complicated that it's impossible to trace it ?

Russian Fan is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 09:34 AM
  #80
Icey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eye
Teams do not own the parking lots and they only usually get between 10% - 20% of parking, concessions and merchandise sales.
Not really true. Some team owners also own the arena and the parking lots.

But whether it is only 10-20% of parking and concessions they get or 100% its still revenue and should be counted as such. Its the same as you not declaring interest income on your taxes. Doesn't matter where it comes from or the amount, its still income and therefore must be declared no matter the amount.

Icey is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 01:44 PM
  #81
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
Are you being facetious?

Seriously, though, it wouldn't be as hard as you suggest. The NHL has two clear and successful models to follow and would simply need to pick which works out best for them.

As for opening the books, that can be done after the two sides agree on what revenue is to be shared. No sense, for example, in making Bill Wirtz disclose how much he receives from stadium naming rights if that's not to be included in the shared revenue.
The point is the owners disclose everything then you negotiate the definition as occurred in the NBA and NFL. You do not negotiate blind and certainly not with Dollar Bill Wirtz.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 05:43 PM
  #82
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,391
vCash: 500
Upshaw was recently saying that the defined revenues were falling from 70% to 63% of all revenues. So really they only get 65% of 63% of the overall revenues.

thinkwild is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:46 PM
  #83
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
I just don't see why it's ok for an owner to make let's say 3000 cars @ 10$ = 30,000$ for 41 games = 1,230,000$ but won't be include on a report that shows they were losing ?M$ in the Levitt report.

That means you're okay that he could make 5-6-7M$ related to the 41 hockey games not report in the loss & on the other side claiming that this team loss 5-6-7M$ last year ?

It's still speculations but it shows why owners can't be trust. If the revenues like my example is close that what the losses were reported. Imagine what a 24% rollback of 50M$ payroll just transform a team with huge profit ?

I'm not saying that the NHLPA proposal was good, I'M just trying to demonstrate that if the owners want linkage, they need to define revenu & not just impose the ''my way or the highway'' concept.
First of all, the owners have stated they will do a joint audit to determine revenue sources, which means the auditor should tell what revenues are.

Defining hockey related revenues is the kind of job that's best done by accountants.

You can only include revenues that have a strong relation with hockey. For example, if there's a parking at the location of the arena that is not used for anything else, then obviously the main purpose of the parking is to be used for arena events. In that case, the normal share of revenues related to that parking should count in the hockey revenues. What is the "normal share"? That's something that you have to find out on the field. See what kind of money the big events (leading events) of a building usually receive from the parking revenues. That share is the normal share that hockey players should be entitled a part to. On the other hand, if there's a parking a few blocks away from the arena, that is going to be used whether there is hockey or not (so main purpose of the parking not necessarily hockey), then the revenues should not be counted as hockey revenues, whoever the owner of the parking is.

You can go about pretty much all revenues like this and find out what's the part that the players should be entitled to.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
02-07-2005, 08:56 PM
  #84
quat
winsome, loathsome
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 11,580
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to quat
Quote:
Originally Posted by DR
whats your question ?

dr


"establish a salary range that is independant of revenues"

Well, if one considers the 24% roll back being accepted by the league... we can see this as a salary range "dependant of revenues", in that both sides see this as what the league can bear as far as salaries are concerned.

My question is how can anyone come up with a salary independant of revenues, without completely destroying the present range of earnings. What criteria to you suggest they base it on? How important they are to society? Not very. How valuable they are to peoples lives? Not really. They play a game after all...

Simply put, it's crazy to ignore the financial reality of a business when deciding salaries... praticularily in sports. If not, then the players would get totally hosed.

quat 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 04:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.