arturo7
Well-Known Member
I wish we still had a minor league team in SoCal.
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.
paulster2626 said: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?
(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.
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.
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.
paulster2626 said:And therein lies the problem. But it's not so simple to solve. Lets say you owned a Chick Fil A right beside a really busy highway. Then some 'tard comes along and sticks one up in the arctic, hoping to tap in to the so far untouched Inuit market, despite the constant reminders that the Inuit prefer to eat seal and shun fried chicken.
A few years later, 'tard is losing his shirt because nobody shows up to his restaurant, and now you're being asked to spread more of your profits around to keep him in business, as well as his unionized employees.
The whole setup is a farce. Bottom line is the NHL has 18 teams losing money, and therefore has 18 teams that would benefit from a lost season. If the players think they have any sort of power here, they're wrong. But good on them to stop talking.
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
paulster2626 said:And therein lies the problem. But it's not so simple to solve. Lets say you owned a Chick Fil A right beside a really busy highway. Then some 'tard comes along and sticks one up in the arctic, hoping to tap in to the so far untouched Inuit market, despite the constant reminders that the Inuit prefer to eat seal and shun fried chicken.
A few years later, 'tard is losing his shirt because nobody shows up to his restaurant, and now you're being asked to spread more of your profits around to keep him in business, as well as his unionized employees.
The whole setup is a farce. Bottom line is the NHL has 18 teams losing money, and therefore has 18 teams that would benefit from a lost season. If the players think they have any sort of power here, they're wrong. But good on them to stop talking.
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Homercidal said:We've only talked about the money, like who gets how much of what the league (teams) take in. The league claims that they need a better percentage of the $$ taken in to support the teams that are losing money. essentially, the players take a pay cut to finance the lower performing portion of the teams.
But there is more to it. The league in general, and teams in particular are responsible for advertising, merchandising, etc. Players have very little control over what the teams spend and do for these items.
So you can understand how the players might feel if they are asked to contribute out of their salary to what might be a very undeserving team, who may not be doing a very good job making people WANT to come and spend money at the rink. In a nutshell this could be described as the players bailing out the owners' poor business management.
I don't agree with the concept of more successful teams supporting underachieving teams. I don't support propping up teams in market areas with little interest in the game.
I think the solution would be for the league and the players to make concessions and reach a point they can agree on. The players will have to understand the percentage is fixed and won't revert back. Owners must understand that players need arbitration.
Most of all, they need to understand that they need to play some damn hockey!
I missed the Obama thing, i would never vote on just one issue. I'm not buying that 18 teams lost money by conducting business, who are they? Well maybe I can. Tons of people lost their houses because they lived outside their means and reality. Someone enlighten me why Quebec would work this time? Jury is out on Winnipeg.
paulster2626 said:Who cares about Obama or any US politics here? This is hockey land.
The NHLPA has been looking at the League's finances for years. You're telling me these teams have been cooking the books to make it look like they're losing out on cash? It's fairly easy to name a ton of teams who obviously are not profitable:
Phoenix
NYI
Nashville
Tampa
Anaheim
Florida
Dallas
Columbus
St. Louis
New Jersey
Buffalo
I'm sure there's 7 more out there that would surprise us. Are people going to games in Carolina yet?
When Quebec and Winnipeg closed up shop it was more to do with the Canadian $ being worth $0.65 US than anything else. Other Canadian teams would have been lost as well if it weren't for Bettman pulling some strings. Since then, things have changed. You really think the "jury is out on winnipeg"? Honestly, you think the question of whether or not the 'Peg is a better spot for that franchise than Atlanta is debatable?
Quebec would work because they've been screaming for their team back since the day they left. Didn't they just build a new arena?
jtkratzer said:Devils struggle to fill that building every single home game, every single year until the playoffs.
sivdrinks said:I'm sure they don't get near the corporate ticket sales that Philly and NY do. Not sure exactly what they were thinking in "82" that made them decide they could do well with those other area teams. I don't know, the whole thing sucks. Greed, greed and greed. I hope they all make it through the next couple months ok, they got kids to feed.
jtkratzer said:I don't know...maybe it's just more passionate fans. They were still at 98.9% capacity in their worst season in franchise history, finishing last in the league.
I hate both sides. Millionaires fighting with billionaires, and the only real losers will be the ones who actually pay their salaries.
Barnzy02 said:it'll end up hurting the clubs that are doing well.
emjay said:As if tickets to Leafs games aren't already expensive enough...
I don't know...maybe it's just more passionate fans. They were still at 98.9% capacity in their worst season in franchise history, finishing last in the league.
Boleslaus said:ESPN lists their attendance at 87.4% for last season. 22nd in the league by percentage.
Too bad attendance alone can't predict profitability or else 21 teams would be in good shape.
Not terrible considering your competing with the Flyers and the Rags. If I'm not mistaken the lower level seats from blue line to blue line are $250, sorry but that's way too much scratch for most people.
Outdated but a good link. http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/hockey-valuations-10_rank.html
Boleslaus said:It's crazy to me that teams like the Caps and Pens could be losing money...
It wasnt too long ago that pitts was ready to fold and move to KC.
sivdrinks said:No argument there. I'm still an Eagles and Phillies fan
Barnzy02 said:I mean the wealthier clubs will essentially make less money to keep other teams afloat.
Could someone maybe delete the last couple posts? Too many Deviant Dales last night.
jtkratzer said:Go back and click the edit button and change the text to whatever you want...however, the posts where you were quoted by emjay will still show your original comments unless he edits his posts, too.
Boleslaus said:On a more hockey related note...T minus 4.5 days
The side that will be hurt most is the fans
Enter your email address to join: