You keep going on about this. Maybe I am missing your point.
I was under the impression the NHL already increased their revenue sharing pot up to 220m (maybe it was 250m). I thought revenue sharing was already settled and the PA didn't need any more money put into that pot.
With the last CBA, the NFL is moving to get rid of revenue sharing. I remember reading an article were maybe 11m went into revenue sharing already. I could be missing the point you are trying to make, or maybe you are talking about something different.
100% revenue sharing is so beyond retarded. Have you followed MLB at all? Have you seen what the POS owner in Florida has done over the years. If every owner is guaranteed to make money no matter what they do, you are going to end up with a retard like Loria maybe 2. Im an NHL fan first, and i'd hate to see a fellow fan get screwed over by a jackass like the guy in Florida. Owners are businessmen, a lot of their motivation comes from making money. You take away a huge motivation like that, and the on ice product is going to suffer.
If the owners increased the pool to 200+ million then it happened on a day I wasn't online; I've seen reports of an increase to 30%, which might cover the losses when you consider player share is dropping, but cuts it really close.
Edit: The NFL can begin moving away from revenue sharing because their TV contract is lucrative enough to allow that. When they implemented revenue sharing, it wasn't.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
The total loss from struggling teams was 129.9 million. The total income for well-to-do teams was 380.5 million dollars, leading to a 250.6 million dollar overall profit for the league. That's more than enough to share with struggling teams.
And 250.6/30 teams = 8.35M a team.
Do you think that's a good profit margin for an owner in a 3B+ industry?
If the owners increased the pool to 200+ million then it happened on a day I wasn't online; I've seen reports of an increase to 30%, which might cover the losses when you consider player share is dropping, but cuts it really close.
Ive seen the 200 + million offer as well. Pretty sure google can find it for ya.
I'll check back in a few hours because I still don't see a deal in sight unfortunately.
At this stage in the game Bettman and Fehr should just take their respective proposals to a local daycare, hand them to a bunch of four year olds and say, "Here - you kids have more wisdom and maturity we do so you make a decision."
Do you think that's a good profit margin for an owner in a 3B+ industry?
You fail to realize that owner's make the majority of their profits on selling the team 5/10/15 years later at many more millions. The year to year profits aren't usually very great (unless you're a top 3 team). Tax issues are in play as well.
Do you think that's a good profit margin for an owner in a 3B+ industry?
To answer your question: if we assume avg. team value of $250M, that's a 3%+ annual return, not to mention appreciation on the asset itself. Not a great return, but also not a terrible one.
As an aside, I actually think the real #s are worse than this. I just wanted to answer your question.
If the owners increased the pool to 200+ million then it happened on a day I wasn't online; I've seen reports of an increase to 30%, which might cover the losses when you consider player share is dropping, but cuts it really close.
Edit: The NFL can begin moving away from revenue sharing because their TV contract is lucrative enough to allow that. When they implemented revenue sharing, it wasn't.
You would have needed Fehr or someone to take charge and try and force the league to do so. Instead he just took 5 days to do a vote they are doing in under half the time along with ask for mediation that he seems to ignore.
Maybe the next union head that is invested in his contingents.
I don't think people realize the how it would hurt them if the league booted out all the unprofitable teams.
They think it will solve all problems, they must not be NFL fans. Even in the NFL fans bicker about the "Bad Markets" like Jacksonville, who even as the worst franchise in the league are making money.
Lets pretend that chopping the bottom 10 teams from the NHL wouldn't damage it's imagine nationally... fans of the top 5 teams would STILL ***** about the 18th, 19th, 20th teams in the league.
The ONLY long-term solution for the NHL is 30/32 markets spread across the continent with at least a decent chance to break even each year. Some fans are just too shortsighted to realize that, but at least they aren't the ones in charge.
That other guy may be an agent with the NHLPA, but why would we all of a sudden have the inside scoop? He hasn't had any other info recently for the lockout and CBA talks.
According to this, Fehr and the NHLPA want it...I find nothing that says the league has offered it or agreed to it. If I'm not mistaken, that number would be close to 60%.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis
You would have needed Fehr or someone to take charge and try and force the league to do so. Instead he just took 5 days to do a vote they are doing in under half the time along with ask for mediation that he seems to ignore.
Maybe the next union head that is invested in his contingents.
As you can see from that article, Fehr has pushed for it. There's no way we see that number though.
They think it will solve all problems, they must not be NFL fans. Even in the NFL fans bicker about the "Bad Markets" like Jacksonville, who even as the worst franchise in the league are making money.
Lets pretend that chopping the bottom 10 teams from the NHL wouldn't damage it's imagine nationally... fans of the top 5 teams would STILL ***** about the 18th, 19th, 20th teams in the league.
The ONLY long-term solution for the NHL is 30/32 markets spread across the continent with at least a decent chance to break even each year. Some fans are just too shortsighted to realize that, but at least they aren't the ones in charge.
Hogwash. Just because the Big 4 currently have ~30 teams/ea. doesn't make it a golden rule that that model is the right one for each respective league. I agree with you that 30 healthy franchises would be nice, but the point is that there may just not be 30 hockey markets in NA. What is CERTAINLY true is that some of the current 30 are NOT hockey markets.
Yeah coulda put that in your original comment to me.
I would personally like a more representative selection of players at these meetings. Just like Sidney Crosby alone should not be at contract length meetings, Campoli should not be working up pension plans.
