Newest Threads

**DangerRoss** · 08-31-2012, 08:24 PM

If the NHL does have a lockout, I hope Direct TV picks up the Russian Elite league.

**Homercidal** · 09-04-2012, 02:02 PM

Looks like talks have encountered a "recess". Word has it the League decided to postpone the talks because the NHLPA's latest counter proposal didn't cause their private parts to tingle.

In case anyone isn't aware, a lockout will affect not only the players, the league, and their fans, but also the business that count on fans coming to games and then stopping by for a drinks or food, or even lodging. Millions of dollars in revenue to surrounding businesses will be lost. Some of them may not survive if the lockout is lengthy.

In other news, the odds that the Grand Rapids Griffins, Ferris State University Bulldogs, and Western University Broncos will get more of my money this winter has been reported to be "increasing".

**paulster2626** · 09-04-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boleslaus

I agree with you. Maybe the NHL did emerge from the last lockout with some gains, however two lockouts within 10 years?? That can't be good.

I don't think fans will ever give up on the NHL. Hockey fans are too attached to their sport, too grounded in heritage to just walk away because of something like this. We all bitch and moan about it, but we would do anything to watch our teams.

If 18 teams are losing money by having a season, then it benefits the owners to not play this season until they get what they want.

The fans will return en masse, just like they did the last two times.

This lockout will hurt the players far more than the League, and they must know it. I don't understand why they don't just start with the 50/50 split and go from there. Idiots.

**sivdrinks** · 09-04-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulster2626

If 18 teams are losing money by having a season, then it benefits the owners to not play this season until they get what they want.

The fans will return en masse, just like they did the last two times.

This lockout will hurt the players far more than the League, and they must know it. I don't understand why they don't just start with the 50/50 split and go from there. Idiots.

Isn't it already a 54/46 split for the owners and they want more? I'm still trying to figure out what "revenue" is. I thought the players were paid with a contract from their employee the owner and everything else was the owners to deal with, profit and loss.

**arturo7** · 09-04-2012, 03:23 PM

I wish we still had a minor league team in SoCal.

**sivdrinks** · 09-04-2012, 04:04 PM

I plan on following the Devils by going to a bunch if Albany games here in Hershey.

**paulster2626** · 09-04-2012, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sivdrinks

Isn't it already a 54/46 split for the owners and they want more? I'm still trying to figure out what "revenue" is. I thought the players were paid with a contract from their employee the owner and everything else was the owners to deal with, profit and loss.

No it's 57/43 for the players. The salary cap is directly tied to league revenue, so as revenue as a whole increases, so does the cap (and therefore, floor).

The problem is there are really only 12 money-making teams, while the rest wallow in despair. Currently if they continue on the path they are on, these poorer teams cannot survive. There are a few ways to fix the problem:

1) Contraction. Simply eliminate the poorer teams that cant sustain themselves. Problem is this is very expensive, and players lose jobs, it's really good for nobody so it's not a viable option.

2) Relocation. Move some teams around, why not? We all know Quebec City could take another team.

3) Increased revenue sharing. If you're the Toronto Maple Leafs, are you interested in paying out a few hundred million in profit to places like Phoenix, Tampa, and Florida, simply so they can exist and compete against you? Better yet, if you're a Leaf fan paying $150 for a ticket, do you really care if some guy in Phoenix gets to go to a playoff game and pay only $30?

4) Lower the cap. A 50/50 split would do this to an extent.

5) Remove the salary floor, or increase the difference. Not sure if players would agree to this or not.

In the end the solution is out there - it's just whether or not the NHLPA is willing to start giving a **** enough to get this done. They stalled negotiations for 6 months hoping they could just continue playing under the current CBA, but the owners told them to stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine. Now everyone is paying the price for their stall tactics.

**sivdrinks** · 09-04-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulster2626

No it's 57/43 for the players. The salary cap is directly tied to league revenue, so as revenue as a whole increases, so does the cap (and therefore, floor).

The problem is there are really only 12 money-making teams, while the rest wallow in despair. Currently if they continue on the path they are on, these poorer teams cannot survive. There are a few ways to fix the problem:

1) Contraction. Simply eliminate the poorer teams that cant sustain themselves. Problem is this is very expensive, and players lose jobs, it's really good for nobody so it's not a viable option.

2) Relocation. Move some teams around, why not? We all know Quebec City could take another team.

3) Increased revenue sharing. If you're the Toronto Maple Leafs, are you interested in paying out a few hundred million in profit to places like Phoenix, Tampa, and Florida, simply so they can exist and compete against you? Better yet, if you're a Leaf fan paying $150 for a ticket, do you really care if some guy in Phoenix gets to go to a playoff game and pay only $30?

4) Lower the cap. A 50/50 split would do this to an extent.

5) Remove the salary floor, or increase the difference. Not sure if players would agree to this or not.

In the end the solution is out there - it's just whether or not the NHLPA is willing to start giving a **** enough to get this done. They stalled negotiations for 6 months hoping they could just continue playing under the current CBA, but the owners told them to stick that idea where the sun doesn't shine. Now everyone is paying the price for their stall tactics.

So as revenue increases the owners have to put it into the cap and the players get to put it into their pockets? Still not clear on revenue. Is that just tv contracts and sponsors like Bud Light?

**paulster2626** · 09-04-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sivdrinks

So as revenue increases the owners have to put it into the cap and the players get to put it into their pockets? Still not clear on revenue. Is that just tv contracts and sponsors like Bud Light?

It'd be everything. It's all out there for us to read:

Quote:

(a) "Hockey Related Revenues." "Hockey Related Revenues" or "HRR" for each League Year means the operating revenues, including Barter (as defined below), from all sources, whether known or unknown, whether now in existence or created in the future, as expressly set forth in this Section 50.1(a), of each Club or the League, for or with respect to that League Year, as expressly set forth in this Section 50.1(a), on an accrual basis, derived or earned from, relating to or arising directly or indirectly out of the playing of NHL hockey games or NHL-related events in which current NHL Players participate or in which current NHL Players' names and likenesses are used, by each such Club or the League, or attributable directly to the Club or the League from a Club Affiliated Entity or League Affiliated Entity, as expressly set forth herein, and is subject to any inclusions or exclusions as expressly set forth in the Article 50.

Quote:

The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.

Lets say the league pulls in $3.6 billion next season in revenue. This is from everything - national TV contracts, local contracts, ticket sales, beer, jerseys, all of that.

This value would then be used to calculate the salary cap the following season. Since the players share is 57%, they'd be entitled to $2.05 billion. Divide that by 30, and you've got a $68M cap. The floor is just $16M less than the cap, so it'd be $52M.

Looking at the whole thing, it seems the League didn't realize how important the revenue sharing aspect would be, and screwed it up. Perhaps they really thought hockey would take off in the desert. Whoops.

**sivdrinks** · 09-05-2012, 12:34 AM

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance, I suck at business stuff. I get how the salary cap works now. But, that's the only way the players get money is through contracts right? More cap more money? As far as the owners, they would just get their 43% in cash right?

Guess there's a lot of different ways to look at things. The more revenue that's created, presumably by the good teams, creates a higher cap. This basically in itself will bankrupt the less successful teams, they won't be able to afford the better players they need to compete. I don't think just getting rid of all the problem teams is a great answer, because I'm a Devils fan! There were some dumb expansions though, I don't even think the Dolphins do well in Miami.