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
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, 03:23 PM
  #76
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
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...
Along those lines here are a few links to the importance of revenue sharing to the NFL:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PGAT5SGPL1.DTL

Favorite quote from Bob Kraft: "I think (revenue-sharing) is the fundamental strength of the league," said Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. "I don't think any of us needs an edge in this area. The edge really should come in terms of how you manage your football operations."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ue-cover_x.htm

Favorite quote Paul Tagliabue on revenue sharing:"You only discuss this subject as much as we do if you have a very strong partnership," Tagliabue says. "If you don't have a strong partnership, you don't worry about league economics. Everybody would worry about their own economics."

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 03:32 PM
  #77
Bauer83
Registered User
 
Bauer83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 526
vCash: 50
If I were Bob Goodenow this is what I would propose. It would do the PA wonders, and it would really help there case in the public. Cause as much as us die hard fans continue to debate this to the nights end, casual fans are walking away.

So a last ditch offer would be this.

We accept linkage at 57%. (this would include a salary range, which means a salary floor would have to be implemented)

We would like full season revenue sharing with this framework(I am not going to pretend to know what they would like here, but this shows they actually do care about the small markets as well).

We would like a payroll range of 13 million, with a luxury tax also included at 7+million.

An open book policy with third party auditors(on a side note, please don't mention we can't define what is revenue, there would be many lawyers and accountants involved with much more knowledge then 99% of us, which I am sure could find a way to define them)


Now what this would do would give them the best of all worlds. As much as linkage sounds like a bad thing, it can be very positive if the league decides as whole they want to improve. Increased revenue, with some sort of full force revenue sharing would allow all profits to slowly trickle down to everyone. It would promote a healthy and financially stable league, and would start to turn a corner.

Bauer83 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 03:51 PM
  #78
Double-Shift Lassé
Moderator
Just post better
 
Double-Shift Lassé's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Superurban Cbus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,186
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.
Your last statement is spot on. And to those who argue that the players want revenue sharing so they can get bigger salaries, so what? If there's a cap, salaries can only get so big. If ther's revenue sharing, all teams can pay proportionally more to each player or give a couple bigger contracts to stars. Poorer teams keep their stars - nothing wrong there. And you need a floor to make the richer teams feel like they're actully contributing to the health of the league (by creating more competitive and, hopefully, financially successful teams) rather than the health of small market owners pockets.

But the types of revenue are different between the NFL and NHL, not to mention the way they achieve it. All TV money is national, easy to divide up; only eight home games in a regular season, not comparable to 41; many more. The comparison just isn't there.

Double-Shift Lassé is online now  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:09 PM
  #79
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,220
vCash: 500
I'm not defending his position or what he said...in fact, I find it pretty disgusting\ironic..but anyone that's saying Mark Eaton is a fringe NHLer..or worse..doesn't even know who he is...isn't serving to denigrate Eaton, but is rather demonstrating the fact that they're not very knowledgeable when it comes to hockey. Eaton was BY FAR Nashville's best defensive d-man last year, and was Timonen's partner on the first pairing against the opposing top lines every night.

Eaton is an underrated defenseman, but I don't think he'll be so obscure for long.

Now, back to his comments and the irony in them. A few years ago...Eaton would have BEEN a fringe NHLer. The small market teams that are going to suffer from this lockout are the ones that gave him the chance to further himself and turn into a good player. It's similar to Scott Walker's comments in regard to the union and "overexpansion." Walker went from being a fourth line agitator to a top line team MVP due to "overexpansion." These guys are really looking a gift horse in the mouth and losing a lot of respect from their fans,and would probably be best served to keep their mouths shut.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:10 PM
  #80
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Double-Shift Lassés
But the types of revenue are different between the NFL and NHL, not to mention the way they achieve it. All TV money is national, easy to divide up; only eight home games in a regular season, not comparable to 41; many more. The comparison just isn't there.
this is right... this is why the local TV revenue (eg Leafs on TSN, Rangers on MSG, Philly on Comcast etc.) should go into a pool and be divided by 30... thats my opinion... now the big markets wont like it at first... but they should be looking at the big picture long term... this will only breed a more competitive league which will breed more fans (it will be the cool thing to watch and play hockey if you have a winning team) this means more fans... which over time translates into more $$$ not just for big markets but all markets... and the players will get rewarded for this as well...as there pie gets that much bigger...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 04:56 PM
  #81
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
Along those lines here are a few links to the importance of revenue sharing to the NFL:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...PGAT5SGPL1.DTL

Favorite quote from Bob Kraft: "I think (revenue-sharing) is the fundamental strength of the league," said Bob Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots. "I don't think any of us needs an edge in this area. The edge really should come in terms of how you manage your football operations."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...ue-cover_x.htm

Favorite quote Paul Tagliabue on revenue sharing:"You only discuss this subject as much as we do if you have a very strong partnership," Tagliabue says. "If you don't have a strong partnership, you don't worry about league economics. Everybody would worry about their own economics."
my favourite is

"The sum of the total is worth more than the parts."

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:17 PM
  #82
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
my favourite is

"The sum of the total is worth more than the parts."
Here are two more for you. The first one deals with the issue of how regional networks and different ownership of tv deals were pooled together for the good of the league. I think it is very relevant to the situation the NHL faces today and touches on one of the issues in your earlier posts. Modell had such vision that he was willing to give up his own profitable network for the good of the game. Unfortunately I don't see Bettman and the owners having the vision Rozelle and Modell had back then. http://www.packersnews.com/print/print_15537512.shtml

Here is the second one which deals with some of the issues facing the NFL today.
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2004...2900-8765r.htm
My favorite quote is again from Art Modell: "It's imperative that we continue to share revenue," Modell said. "[Snyder and Jones] will never do as well on their own as they do as part of our league package. Every team is only as strong as its fellow teams. What do you think the problem is in baseball, basketball and hockey?"

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:21 PM
  #83
Digger12
Registered User
 
Digger12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Defending the border
Posts: 15,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
My favorite quote is again from Art Modell: "It's imperative that we continue to share revenue," Modell said. "[Snyder and Jones] will never do as well on their own as they do as part of our league package. Every team is only as strong as its fellow teams. What do you think the problem is in baseball, basketball and hockey?"
Noble words, but easy to say when they have a TV deal that has them swimming in money before a single game is played.

Give them hockey's TV deal, then we'll see how 3 musketeers they are then.

Digger12 is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:24 PM
  #84
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
Here are two more for you. The first one deals with the issue of how regional networks and different ownership of tv deals were pooled together for the good of the league. I think it is very relevant to the situation the NHL faces today and touches on one of the issues in your earlier posts. Modell had such vision that he was willing to give up his own profitable network for the good of the game. Unfortunately I don't see Bettman and the owners having the vision Rozelle and Modell had back then. http://www.packersnews.com/print/print_15537512.shtml

Here is the second one which deals with some of the issues facing the NFL today.
http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2004...2900-8765r.htm
My favorite quote is again from Art Modell: "It's imperative that we continue to share revenue," Modell said. "[Snyder and Jones] will never do as well on their own as they do as part of our league package. Every team is only as strong as its fellow teams. What do you think the problem is in baseball, basketball and hockey?"
i have never understood why more people (fans) dont bring all these ideas up... until a few here have I have never heard people talk that much about this... its good to bring this up as I think it will make the LEAGUE stronger and bring it more revenue which should be the ultimate goal for all involved...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:25 PM
  #85
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Noble words, but easy to say when they have a TV deal that has them swimming in money before a single game is played.

Give them hockey's TV deal, then we'll see how 3 musketeers they are then.
Actually, if you read the first article above you will see that when the NFL first started it's TV deal several teams had their own tv deal. This situation is not unlike what faces the NHL today with local TV deals. The point was that big market owners were willing to sacrifice short term profits for the long term health of the sport by putting their local profits into a pool to be divied up equally by all teams.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:28 PM
  #86
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digger12
Noble words, but easy to say when they have a TV deal that has them swimming in money before a single game is played.

Give them hockey's TV deal, then we'll see how 3 musketeers they are then.
you have to start somewhere... if you were making $5 and I was making $1... and you were told that if you give me $2 that you would end up making $10 would you do it? of course you would? this is simplistic but along the same lines

dakota is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 05:32 PM
  #87
shnagle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakota
i have never understood why more people (fans) dont bring all these ideas up... until a few here have I have never heard people talk that much about this... its good to bring this up as I think it will make the LEAGUE stronger and bring it more revenue which should be the ultimate goal for all involved...
I think a lot of times people get so caught up on choosing sides that they often lose sight of the bigger picture. It's great when cooler heads can prevail and you can actually discuss things that will make the league better overall rather than trying to just win your argument. I would hope that some of these ideas could be discussed and implemented along with the cap as I really believe that is the ultimate compromise. Players give into the cap and the owners give "meaningful" revenue sharing. Seems to easy to me. Thanks for your thought provoking thoughts on this issue which forced me to do a little more research.

shnagle is offline  
Old
02-11-2005, 07:34 PM
  #88
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shnagle
I think a lot of times people get so caught up on choosing sides that they often lose sight of the bigger picture. It's great when cooler heads can prevail and you can actually discuss things that will make the league better overall rather than trying to just win your argument. I would hope that some of these ideas could be discussed and implemented along with the cap as I really believe that is the ultimate compromise. Players give into the cap and the owners give "meaningful" revenue sharing. Seems to easy to me. Thanks for your thought provoking thoughts on this issue which forced me to do a little more research.
i really think there will be a season... i just hope the two sides fix the league so that it healthy as a whole. I want to see a team like edmonton succeed and not have to sell their players to other teams... a team like Ottawa not have to sell their players... I would like to see a league where the top teams are not always the top spenders... i would like to see an even playing field and i think this would be better for the business of the NHL and the players...

well see if they fix it properly or do like baseball and have a band aid fix...

dakota is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:19 AM
  #89
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 801
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc2005
The NHLPA tried to discuss the NHL's disappearing revenue sharing shenanigans, which pissed off the league, so they left. Do you honestly think the league was (1) perfectly willing to negotiate (or eliminate) the triggers and (2) willing to negotiate them to the length that they would no longer be automatic, so that the PA proposal would be given a full and fair trial period? I don't buy that for a second.

But better say after the fact that they were willing to negotiate these ridiculous triggers, that makes the league look better in the eyes of the public who take everything said by Daly and Bettman at face value and automatically label anything Bob & Ted say as a baldface lie.
You are a very inept negotiator if you rely on assumptions in determining negotiations. These arguments do not float. If you see a deal that is interesting, you try to negotiate off of the numbers to get what you are looking for, even if it was clear as day that the other side said it was there absolute best offer, which was not the case. You don't sit back and say we assumed everything was set in stone. Everything is negotiable, except for the linkage. If that is the case, both Saskin and Goodenow should be fired immediately. These statements are a smokescreen put up by the NHLPA, so they don't have to answer a barrage of questions concerning them rejecting their own proposal by refusing to even try and negotiate. I don't agree with the triggers either, but the total lack to even pursue this, proves the NHLPA knows their system will not curb spending.

kerrly is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:25 AM
  #90
kerrly
Registered User
 
kerrly's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Regina
Country: Canada
Posts: 801
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to kerrly
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterSidorkiewicz
The Rational explanation is that it was strictly a PR move, and judging by most people on this boards actually believing the NHLPA rejected their own offer it worked. Ok look both sides are to blame for this mess but the NHL NEEDS TO OFFER REVENUE SHARING FOR THE REGULAR SEASON AS WELL. People need to get it through their heads. I may go out on a limb here but I pretty much 100% believe if the NHL OFFERED revenue sharing like that close to the NFL's to start we would have basis for negotiations and we would have a season. Brian Burke said this as well, and since Burke has been fairly objective throughout all of this for the most part I believe him as well.
I agree with the NHL and revenue sharing. What is wrong with them. They need to implement meaningful revenue sharing. If it is that important to the NHLPA, like they have hinted at, it could only help the process. Its crucial to the league and I have never thought otherwise. To get, you need to give a little, and I think the NHL is making a huge mistake by low-balling this aspect, for the sake of the game and negotiations. Show the players that the owners are willing to help solve these problems as well. And if you up the revenue sharing to a meaningful amount, and its gets you nowhere with the NHLPA, then you have called their bluff, and truely showed their unwillingness to negotiate. Take away another PR point, and make your case for impasse that much stronger. I see no downside to this, and its time for the big market teams to quit whining about it, because we all know they are the ones controlling this issue.

NOTE* I am for revenue sharing, but it only works under a hard cap. Otherwise its inflationary. I'm not in favor of 100% revenue sharing because I think it's unfair to the big market clubs, but enough needs to be allocated to allow teams to easily meet their thresholds without fiscal disaster. These smaller teams should strive to increase their revenues after that by icing a competitive team that contends for the cup and this will be possible under an equal playing field.

kerrly is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:13 AM
  #91
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,143
vCash: 500
Even the no-name NHLer's are little ******.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 12:23 PM
  #92
PredsFan77*
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Undisclosed
Country: Maldives
Posts: 6,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to PredsFan77* Send a message via AIM to PredsFan77*
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
Even the no-name NHLer's are little ******.


PredsFan77* is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:00 PM
  #93
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerrly
I agree with the NHL and revenue sharing. What is wrong with them. They need to implement meaningful revenue sharing. If it is that important to the NHLPA, like they have hinted at, it could only help the process. Its crucial to the league and I have never thought otherwise. To get, you need to give a little, and I think the NHL is making a huge mistake by low-balling this aspect, for the sake of the game and negotiations. Show the players that the owners are willing to help solve these problems as well. And if you up the revenue sharing to a meaningful amount, and its gets you nowhere with the NHLPA, then you have called their bluff, and truely showed their unwillingness to negotiate. Take away another PR point, and make your case for impasse that much stronger. I see no downside to this, and its time for the big market teams to quit whining about it, because we all know they are the ones controlling this issue.

If the small revenue teams that are the ones most puhing this lockout, also ask for significant revenue sharing they WILL lose the support of the big revenue teams.

The Leafs, Flyers and Wings will go along with a cap ... but want no part of significant revenue sharing.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 01:19 PM
  #94
dakota
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan
If the small revenue teams that are the ones most puhing this lockout, also ask for significant revenue sharing they WILL lose the support of the big revenue teams.

The Leafs, Flyers and Wings will go along with a cap ... but want no part of significant revenue sharing.
this is why the players may be fighting for revenue sharing... it makes sense... if the owners want a cap they have to give in to revenue sharing... vice versa for players..

dakota is offline  
Old
02-12-2005, 06:40 PM
  #95
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
Even the no-name NHLer's are little ******.

Oh, Matt Cooke is speaking out now, too?

barrytrotzsneck 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 08:04 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.