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.

Mark Eaton Speaks

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-11-2005, 01:10 PM
  #51
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
I really have to disagree what revenue sharing is just a smokescreen. The #1 reason the NFL is so successful besides the bigass TV contract is revenue sharing. And I think you'd agree that most people here want a NFL styled system. If no meaningful revenue sharing is offered then I can't see anything ever getting done. If the owners did agree to share regular season revenues that would be a massive step and bridge the gap in getting a deal done and I think it needs to be done. Of course the PA has to give in a lot too but the revenue sharing is definitely a key component of making talks work.
The league will offer 100% revenue sharing, but the PA gets only 33% of the revenues.

Deal?

The league would be wildly successful if the PA agreed to that offer, but I'm guessing you might have a tough sell with the PA, no?

Why?

The PA wants high revenue sharing so that they can increase their % of the leagues revenues. They couldn't give a crap about a level playing field or the fate of the small markets.

Revenue sharing is a smokescreen.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:11 PM
  #52
CGG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 416
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Why is it the responsibility of the 'have' teams (NYR, TO, PHI, etc) to help out the have nots? The NHLPA's stance has changed and they now are all over revenue sharing to fix the league's problems. The way I see it, the PA realizes that the small-smallish market teams are having serious financial trouble and can't even make the recently proposed cap minimum without operating at a loss. Instead of taking a step back and saying 'wow, maybe the players are making too much' they have changed directions a bit and are now stressing revenue sharing. They want the richer teams to prop up the poorer teams so the players can continue to make their inflated salaries. This is obviously a terrible way to run a business, and at the same time puts a large amount of undeserved pressure on the have teams to keep bringing in as much revenue as they do. It's business suicide yet the league is happy to go down that avenue. Just disgraceful
What happened to all the "for the good of the game" crap? That is why it is the responsibility of the 'have' teams to help out the 'have nots'. The competitive balance, the overall health of the league, everything the owners say you want.

FACT: In financial terms, some teams do well (i.e. Leafs) some teams suck (Hurricanes).
PROBLEM: How do we balance things out?

ALTERNATIVES:

#1) Implement a restrictive salary cap system so that no team can spend above the means of the have-nots, so that Carolina breaks even and Toronto churns out a profit of $75 million annually

#2) Redistribute the overall revenue of the league to close the disparity between the haves and the have-nots, then re-adjust player salaries downwards, plus implement some other measures and have the owners take up the responsibility of making sure teams don't get carried away by paying way the heck too much for hockey players again. All teams can succeed on and off the ice so long as their management isn't full of idiots. No team will make an absolute killing, but no team will lose buckets of money either

Look at this rationally and tell me again why they don't need revenue sharing. Why do players have to take on the whole responsibility by themselves, why not share the burden of the lesser teams with the owners??

CGG is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:17 PM
  #53
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
From an article today in the Star (http://www.thestar.com):



Believe who you want, I'd vote for Saskin, since Daly said the day before there was little wiggle room with the triggers, and they were all necessary.
Everything is up for negotiation... if i tell you its my FINAL offer and you take it... too bad for you... but if you counter my offer and make it a little better for you it may work... it never hurts to ask...

these guys are pros, they know this, buying into saskin saying "they said it was their final offer" is BS ... it is tactics... if he really believed that, then he should be making a counter offer this weekend... if he doesnt than the PA has some serious questions to answer as to why they didnt make a counter offer after they found out that they could have negotiated the "triggers"... there is still time Saskin and Goodenow but its your move otherwise you will have a lot of questions to answer when you have less pie to work with next season...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:17 PM
  #54
SENSible1*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
What happened to all the "for the good of the game" crap? That is why it is the responsibility of the 'have' teams to help out the 'have nots'. The competitive balance, the overall health of the league, everything the owners say you want.

FACT: In financial terms, some teams do well (i.e. Leafs) some teams suck (Hurricanes).
PROBLEM: How do we balance things out?

ALTERNATIVES:

#1) Implement a restrictive salary cap system so that no team can spend above the means of the have-nots, so that Carolina breaks even and Toronto churns out a profit of $75 million annually

#2) Redistribute the overall revenue of the league to close the disparity between the haves and the have-nots, then re-adjust player salaries downwards, plus implement some other measures and have the owners take up the responsibility of making sure teams don't get carried away by paying way the heck too much for hockey players again. All teams can succeed on and off the ice so long as their management isn't full of idiots. No team will make an absolute killing, but no team will lose buckets of money either

Look at this rationally and tell me again why they don't need revenue sharing. Why do players have to take on the whole responsibility by themselves, why not share the burden of the lesser teams with the owners??
The PA has been offered profit sharing to account for excess profits generated by #1).

The PA has no desire to "re-adjust the players salaries downwards" in scenario #2). They just want to get their grubby little paws on a higher % of league revenues, but don't want to provide reasons why they feel 55% is unfair.

SENSible1* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:21 PM
  #55
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
What happened to all the "for the good of the game" crap? That is why it is the responsibility of the 'have' teams to help out the 'have nots'. The competitive balance, the overall health of the league, everything the owners say you want.

FACT: In financial terms, some teams do well (i.e. Leafs) some teams suck (Hurricanes).
PROBLEM: How do we balance things out?

ALTERNATIVES:

#1) Implement a restrictive salary cap system so that no team can spend above the means of the have-nots, so that Carolina breaks even and Toronto churns out a profit of $75 million annually

#2) Redistribute the overall revenue of the league to close the disparity between the haves and the have-nots, then re-adjust player salaries downwards, plus implement some other measures and have the owners take up the responsibility of making sure teams don't get carried away by paying way the heck too much for hockey players again. All teams can succeed on and off the ice so long as their management isn't full of idiots. No team will make an absolute killing, but no team will lose buckets of money either

Look at this rationally and tell me again why they don't need revenue sharing. Why do players have to take on the whole responsibility by themselves, why not share the burden of the lesser teams with the owners??
Well for starters your #1 is a bit off. Why should the owners of the Hurricanes only budget to break even? They paid for their franchise, don't you think businesses should operate to make money? I do, so the cap should be set so a team like the Canes can make money while still giving the players generous compensation. The fact that some teams will rake it in is not my worry. They were wise to buy the team and deserve the financial winfall that comes with it.

And #2, you can't assume the have teams will continue to do as well as they are. If they start losing revenues for ANY reason the domino effect starts and everything starts going down the crapper.

The league wants financial viability, and since franchises cost many many millions of dollars I can't argue with them not wanting to throw away their money. People like you and myself just have fundamental philosophical differences. I think the players already make too much, and don't deserve to bleed the league of as much revenue as possible. There comes a point in time where is enough is enough. The average salary the league is proposing will ensure each player can own his own Bentley. To me that's enough. Business owners deserve to rake it in, as they are the ones taking all the risks.

I don't follow your train of thought regarding 'Why do players have to take on the whole responsibility by themselves' the players have no responsibility here. All they have to do is play a game and make wads of cash. No one is asking them to pay all the bills the owners have to pay. They still have guaranteed contracts. You'll have to explain to me where the players responsibility comes in to play.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:27 PM
  #56
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Why is it the responsibility of the 'have' teams (NYR, TO, PHI, etc) to help out the have nots? The NHLPA's stance has changed and they now are all over revenue sharing to fix the league's problems. The way I see it, the PA realizes that the small-smallish market teams are having serious financial trouble and can't even make the recently proposed cap minimum without operating at a loss. Instead of taking a step back and saying 'wow, maybe the players are making too much' they have changed directions a bit and are now stressing revenue sharing. They want the richer teams to prop up the poorer teams so the players can continue to make their inflated salaries. This is obviously a terrible way to run a business, and at the same time puts a large amount of undeserved pressure on the have teams to keep bringing in as much revenue as they do. It's business suicide yet the league is happy to go down that avenue. Just disgraceful
this is where people have to start thinking of the NHL as one entity, a business in itself... the teams are not competing with each other financially... all 30 teams are the business... like in the NFL ... this is why revenue sharing is important... and I do believe THIS is what the players are fighting for as well... they want a healthy league... but they want it written into the CBA so a few owners cannot make all the money... they want all 30 teams healthy...

I have stated it many times would you rather have 5 teams making $30, 10 making $5, and 15 breaking even or losing money...

or 30 teams making $10... if you do the math its better to have 30 teams making $10...

the teams will be more competitive, the fan base will grow as more teams "have a chance" at being successfull (success breeds more fans)... which leads to more TV ratings which leads to more $$$... mroe jersey sales, more $$ for both players and owners in the long run... the owners have to figure that out and I hope they have... i am pro owner and I hope they get there cap but they should have meaningful revenue sharing.

the biggest problem is the local TV revenue for teams this should all go into a pool and be divided by 30... thats my opinion

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:28 PM
  #57
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Why is it the responsibility of the 'have' teams (NYR, TO, PHI, etc) to help out the have nots? The NHLPA's stance has changed and they now are all over revenue sharing to fix the league's problems. The way I see it, the PA realizes that the small-smallish market teams are having serious financial trouble and can't even make the recently proposed cap minimum without operating at a loss. Instead of taking a step back and saying 'wow, maybe the players are making too much' they have changed directions a bit and are now stressing revenue sharing. They want the richer teams to prop up the poorer teams so the players can continue to make their inflated salaries. This is obviously a terrible way to run a business, and at the same time puts a large amount of undeserved pressure on the have teams to keep bringing in as much revenue as they do. It's business suicide yet the league is happy to go down that avenue. Just disgraceful
Well it wasn't business suicide for the NFL and their revenue sharing. Also, wasn't it the "have" teams that got us in this mess in the first place? So if you're pro cap or whatever shouldnt it be on their shoulders to take some of the blame and help fix the smaller market teams and have them become more healthy by sharing some of their regular season revenue? Yes the players should give in on their stance more, but as long as their is no meaningful revenue sharing on the table, nothing will get done. It just seems to me a lot of peoples blind hatred for anything to do with the players gets rid of any sensible thoughts anyone may have. But I guess im in the minourity here, the players should take 100% blame for everything, their salaries should be lowered to whatever the owners desire, there should be zero revenue sharing among teams because those teams "deserve" to keep their own money, UFA should stay at age 31 and arbitration should be thrown out entirely, and it should be illegal for players to hold out for any reason as a restricted FA.

PeterSidorkiewicz is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:34 PM
  #58
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Well it wasn't business suicide for the NFL and their revenue sharing. Also, wasn't it the "have" teams that got us in this mess in the first place? So if you're pro cap or whatever shouldnt it be on their shoulders to take some of the blame and help fix the smaller market teams and have them become more healthy by sharing some of their regular season revenue? Yes the players should give in on their stance more, but as long as their is no meaningful revenue sharing on the table, nothing will get done. It just seems to me a lot of peoples blind hatred for anything to do with the players gets rid of any sensible thoughts anyone may have. But I guess im in the minourity here, the players should take 100% blame for everything, their salaries should be lowered to whatever the owners desire, there should be zero revenue sharing among teams because those teams "deserve" to keep their own money, UFA should stay at age 31 and arbitration should be thrown out entirely, and it should be illegal for players to hold out for any reason as a restricted FA.
Comparing the NFL's situation to the NHL's is not relevant, sorry. No comment.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:42 PM
  #59
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
Well it wasn't business suicide for the NFL and their revenue sharing. Also, wasn't it the "have" teams that got us in this mess in the first place? So if you're pro cap or whatever shouldnt it be on their shoulders to take some of the blame and help fix the smaller market teams and have them become more healthy by sharing some of their regular season revenue? Yes the players should give in on their stance more, but as long as their is no meaningful revenue sharing on the table, nothing will get done. It just seems to me a lot of peoples blind hatred for anything to do with the players gets rid of any sensible thoughts anyone may have. But I guess im in the minourity here, the players should take 100% blame for everything, their salaries should be lowered to whatever the owners desire, there should be zero revenue sharing among teams because those teams "deserve" to keep their own money, UFA should stay at age 31 and arbitration should be thrown out entirely, and it should be illegal for players to hold out for any reason as a restricted FA.
What you fail to understand is that revenue sharing has no benefit or cost for the players. This is why their insistence upon it is a smokescreen. If the league shares revenues exactly like the NFL, it will have no impact on player salaries. Conversely, if the league shares not a dime, it will have no impact on player salaries. The NHL is offering the players a guaranteed percentage of revenues. Whether those revenues are shared or not does not affect their amount nor does it affect the percentage offered to the players.

If you believe the real reason the players are resisting right now is because they want more revenue sharing, then you believe the players are subjugating their own interests and exerting great effort to help the likes of Peter Karamanos and Cal Nichols. Is that remotely credible? Of course not.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:42 PM
  #60
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mackdogs
Comparing the NFL's situation to the NHL's is not relevant, sorry. No comment.
sure it is... comparing the system of revenue sharing is... i am not comparing revenues...the NFL has much more $$$ of course... part of that is because they have revenue sharing and a cap and all their teams are competitive... why the no comment?

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:45 PM
  #61
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
What you fail to understand is that revenue sharing has no benefit or cost for the players. This is why their insistence upon it is a smokescreen. If the league shares revenues exactly like the NFL, it will have no impact on player salaries. Conversely, if the league shares not a dime, it will have no impact on player salaries. The NHL is offering the players a guaranteed percentage of revenues. Whether those revenues are shared or not does not affect their amount nor does it affect the percentage offered to the players.
You answered your own question... see my above post... there IS a benefit to the players to have revenue sharing... the pie as a whole will grow thus making the percentage going to the players larger...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:55 PM
  #62
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
sure it is... comparing the system of revenue sharing is... i am not comparing revenues...the NFL has much more $$$ of course... part of that is because they have revenue sharing and a cap and all their teams are competitive... why the no comment?
Because *I* don't feel it is relevant. My perogative. I'm glad you think it is.

mackdogs* is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:56 PM
  #63
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 14,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
You answered your own question... see my above post... there IS a benefit to the players to have revenue sharing... the pie as a whole will grow thus making the percentage going to the players larger...
Even going by the generous estimations of Forbes, the NHL business is an overall money loser. How does spreading those losses out more evenly 'increase the pie' for the players?

Digger12 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:57 PM
  #64
CarlRacki
Registered User
 
CarlRacki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
You answered your own question... see my above post... there IS a benefit to the players to have revenue sharing... the pie as a whole will grow thus making the percentage going to the players larger...
First, that's a pretty big assumption that revenue sharing will in and of itself lead to a more competitive product and therefore more revenues. Without a cap, the big-market boys will continue to have the ability to spend more and therefore continue to have a payroll edge on the rest of the league. It was for this very reason the NFL installed a cap despite more than two prior decades of revenue sharing.

Second, it's more than a little incongruous for the players to say they'll never accept linkage but they want more revenue sharing because it will boost their share of the pie. Those are inherently contradictory statements. Either they want linkage or they don't.

CarlRacki is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 01:59 PM
  #65
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlRacki
First, that's a pretty big assumption that revenue sharing will in and of itself lead to a more competitive product and therefore more revenues. Without a cap, the big-market boys will continue to have the ability to spend more and therefore continue to have a payroll edge on the rest of the league. It was for this very reason the NFL installed a cap despite more than two prior decades of revenue sharing.

Second, it's more than a little incongruous for the players to say they'll never accept linkage but they want more revenue sharing because it will boost their share of the pie. Those are inherently contradictory statements. Either they want linkage or they don't.
i think there should be a cap and revenue sharing... i am not for the players proposal or the owners... there should be a hybrid of both proposals imo... for the league to grow...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:01 PM
  #66
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
sure it is... comparing the system of revenue sharing is... i am not comparing revenues...the NFL has much more $$$ of course... part of that is because they have revenue sharing and a cap and all their teams are competitive... why the no comment?

Look, I'm not sure I'm 100% with mackdogs in this thread, but he's right on that you can't compare. The lion's share of revenue generated by the NFL is league-wide (TV rights, advertising, merchandise, etc.), and this structure developed over a period of time - started in the 50s. You can't just walk in one day and implement the same type of economic system, espeially when the types of revenues streams are so different.

The NBA is a better comparison, if not a better model.

Double-Shift Lassé is online now  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:02 PM
  #67
PeterSidorkiewicz
Original *** allstar
 
PeterSidorkiewicz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Michigan
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 15,051
vCash: 500
I am not saying the players are completely right on their stances either, because theyre not. The players need to negotiate their stance as well. All I am trying to say is that revenue sharing is definitely a key component that needs to be utilised in the next CBA and the owners refusal to share regular season revenue irks me, just like I suppose players refusing to accept anything to do with linkage irks a lot of people. A guy I think who has been pretty objective and fair is Brian Burke and I think most people will agree. Burke even agrees the owners non-willingness to revenue share is ridiculous and I know a lot of people on here like Burke and likes what he has to say. My personal opinion of this whole matter as I've stated time after time I would like to see a soft-cap system a lot like the Nba's with siginifican revenue sharing for all teams. People may disagree with that system but I do think it's really fair for everyone.

PeterSidorkiewicz is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:03 PM
  #68
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 17,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
i think there should be a cap and revenue sharing... i am not for the players proposal or the owners... there should be a hybrid of both proposals imo... for the league to grow...
Now you're talking... add a floor and I'm right there with ya.

Double-Shift Lassé is online now  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:03 PM
  #69
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Even going by the generous estimations of Forbes, the NHL business is an overall money loser. How does spreading those losses out more evenly 'increase the pie' for the players?
yes it is currently which is why we are in this situation currently... if the players give back their 24% that cuts the league losses... also if there is revenue sharing it will help out the teams that are losing money... if there is a cap this will allow all the other teams to compete on a level playing field...

I stated earlier

Quote:
I have stated it many times would you rather have 5 teams making $30, 10 making $5, and 15 breaking even or losing money...

or 30 teams making $10... if you do the math its better to have 30 teams making $10...
thus increasing the pie in the long run... a la NFL product

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:07 PM
  #70
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,131
vCash: 500
quite frankly I'm of the opinion that if you don't want to talk about revenue streams and what not you don't really get any say whatsoever in any sort of revenue sharing ideas. That said it does go both ways, but the NHL atleast opened the door to increased revenue sharing while the PA wants nothing to do with the other side of the coin. Yep the NHL could do more in that regard no doubt and I think they should have committed to an actual scheme. That said the revenue sharing plans to end all revenue sharing plans prepared by the NHLPA only detailed about 3 to 9% of the revenues. Let's be honest that paltry amount is easily met through a variety of methods that don't really need detailing. It is a smokescreen issue for the PA.

tantalum is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:07 PM
  #71
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassés
Look, I'm not sure I'm 100% with mackdogs in this thread, but he's right on that you can't compare. The lion's share of revenue generated by the NFL is league-wide (TV rights, advertising, merchandise, etc.), and this structure developed over a period of time - started in the 50s. You can't just walk in one day and implement the same type of economic system, espeially when the types of revenues streams are so different.

The NBA is a better comparison, if not a better model.
i am not talking about revenue... if course ya cant compare the revenue... but you can compare the system... and the systems works.. why could you not implement a new system?

I am just asking as I dont know the answer, but to me this is what the owners want... a new system...except they dont want revenue sharing which to me is what the players are fighting for - so that it is included in the CBA. Owners have to give in on revenue sharing and the players have to give in on the cap.

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:10 PM
  #72
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
i think there should be a cap and revenue sharing... i am not for the players proposal or the owners... there should be a hybrid of both proposals imo... for the league to grow...
Brilliant!! Now if only we could get both sides to do this. I have been saying for awhile that revenue sharing within a cap league is the solution. It is a much easier sell to players if their pay cut are not going into the hands of the big revenue teams. If that money is spread around the league all the franchises are financially stronger.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:13 PM
  #73
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
Brilliant!! Now if only we could get both sides to do this. I have been saying for awhile that revenue sharing within a cap league is the solution. It is a much easier sell to players if their pay cut are not going into the hands of the big revenue teams. If that money is spread around the league all the franchises are financially stronger.
i agree and the league as a whole becomes more successful... leading to more revenues... its not rocket science... but the owners have to give in on the revenue sharing (the high revenue teams anyway, as i am sure the lower ones would agree easily), and the players have to give in on a cap.

we have a deal... lets drop the puck...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 02:18 PM
  #74
Crazy Lunatic
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
I am not saying the players are completely right on their stances either, because theyre not. The players need to negotiate their stance as well. All I am trying to say is that revenue sharing is definitely a key component that needs to be utilised in the next CBA.
The whole reason there is a lockout is that players earn 75% of hockey revenue. The NHLPA loves the idea of revenue sharing because all of the profits from teams that make money get funnelled to small market teams who then use that money on salaries. So the 75% stays at 75% and nothing is solved. The NFL and NBA can revenue share because of their TV deals and that is fair revenue sharing. The PA is asking big market teams to spemd their money on players who play for different teams. Nice deal if you're a player but a ridiculous deal if you are the NHL.

 
Old
02-11-2005, 02:20 PM
  #75
mackdogs*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Van, left coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 907
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
i am not talking about revenue... if course ya cant compare the revenue... but you can compare the system... and the systems works.. why could you not implement a new system?

I am just asking as I dont know the answer, but to me this is what the owners want... a new system...except they dont want revenue sharing which to me is what the players are fighting for - so that it is included in the CBA. Owners have to give in on revenue sharing and the players have to give in on the cap.
I agree that a hybrid system is needed and has to be the fix. I just don't think revenue sharing is the only answer here and I see it as the PA just prolonging the gravy train. A floating cap with a min and max and luxury tax and revenue sharing and linkage all rolled into one will somehow be the answer. My take from Saskin yesterday was just to use the big revenue generating teams to save the league and I don't think it is that simple. Assuming revenues that are here today will be here tomorrow is not sane business practice. Sorry for being a bit terse earlier, I am getting frustrated and a bit tired of typing the same things over and over again.... I think I know how G & B feel

mackdogs* 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 05:30 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.