Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Canon Fodder

Let's fix the NHL

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by The Dude

It sounds like your trying to negociate the revenue sharing here. Guess what, we can't iron out ever aspect of the bargaining agreement. We don't know how much the owners make on parking and well I don't care. The players union knows how much the owners make, especially when their paychecks bounce. Some of us are talking about general concepts while you are trying to decide who should be responsible for the ketchup at the concession stand.

Do they know how much the owners make if their paychecks don't bounce? Please, that's silly.

No they don't know how much the owner's make. THAT is a HUGE problem. It is the same way for baseball. The owners refuse to open the books.

When the NBA first got its cap, the owners opened all the books to the players so the players could see the enormity of the problem. If the hockey owners did that, they might get more cooperation from the players.

The fact that you think not opening the books and deciding what is or is not revenue is no big deal just shows how little you actually know about the situation. Kind of like your earlier snippet on collective bargaining and the anti-trust exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by The Dude

Do me a favor and look at this list and tell me how far the yankees got the 3 years they aren't listed.

define competitive balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Buddha

The fact that you think not opening the books and deciding what is or is not revenue is no big deal just shows how little you actually know about the situation. Kind of like your earlier snippet on collective bargaining and the anti-trust exemption.

Yes the owners need to open their books and sorry I don't have the concession numbers unfront of me at the moment but with all the millions being collected by the Players Union, if they don't have some idea of how much the owners are making, well I don't know what to tell you. But I think they do have a really good idea on that.

And if you need me to further clarify the anti-trust statement, let me know, it seems to me to be pretty easy to understand.

The little I understand of the situation is that the actual cost of parking a car in downtown detroit matters less to me then the greater scheme. Take a revenue number, I don't have to agree with you on it, lets let the players and owners decide that number. Then lets have a percentage of that the players are going to take home. Lets talk about how we can increase that number. I think thats whats good for the game. That may be a little point in this thread but I think I have spend the last 2 pages trying to make it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by The Dude

How about competitive imbalance?

http://www.ornery.org/essays/sportswriter/2004-06-14-1.html

Really. If we're going to have a starting point, we need to define terms. what is "competitive balance" to you? Is there a league that has it? If yes, we can discuss why it has it and whether or not a salary cap makes a difference.

But if you don't say what it is, then how can you talk about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes the owners need to open their books and sorry I don't have the concession numbers unfront of me at the moment but with all the millions being collected by the Players Union, if they don't have some idea of how much the owners are making, well I don't know what to tell you. But I think they do have a really good idea on that.

Really? Do you have the other revenue numbers unfront of you at the moment?

I guess you don't know what to tell me then, because the players don't believe the owners. neither did Forbes magazine when they looked at the NHL.

And if you need me to further clarify the anti-trust statement, let me know, it seems to me to be pretty easy to understand.

Yes, I'd like you to further clarify it.

Take a revenue number, I don't have to agree with you on it, lets let the players and owners decide that number. Then lets have a percentage of that the players are going to take home. Lets talk about how we can increase that number. I think thats whats good for the game.

OK. But - again - you have to decide what goes into creating that number, ergo the discussion of what is revenue. Is it just gate receipts? TV? Merchandising? Does it include the ancillary sources of income that owners derive from the business like parking and concessions?

And if you are going to divide it up, you have to trust that the other side is being honest as to what makes up "it". The owners have shown no willingness to let the players see what makes up "it".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Buddha

Really? Do you have the other revenue numbers unfront of you at the moment?

I guess you don't know what to tell me then, because the players don't believe the owners. neither did Forbes magazine when they looked at the NHL.

and

OK. But - again - you have to decide what goes into creating that number, ergo the discussion of what is revenue. Is it just gate receipts? TV? Merchandising? Does it include the ancillary sources of income that owners derive from the business like parking and concessions?

And if you are going to divide it up, you have to trust that the other side is being honest as to what makes up "it". The owners have shown no willingness to let the players see what makes up "it".

No I don't have the numbers infront of me, thats the point. I can't argue how much the revenue sharing should be at and what should count as revenue. I would think this is what the union and the league would have to negotiate.

Yes, I'd like you to further clarify it.

ok

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Canon Fodder

I'm pretty sure all the big league professional sports leagues operate under 'special' anti-trust laws. I know MLB's is the most noted, but they all operate that way. That how they can have collective bargaining for every franchise in each sport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's simply not true.

My response was that players waive their anti trust rights when they sign the CBA so while under contract, the league is anti trust exempt from player rights...this doesn't cover all anti-trust laws, just brought by the players...MLB's famous "Anti Trust Exemption" deals more with the owners rights(no-rights) to file Anti-trust claims against the league(NFL has lost cases on this a number of times) but both sides need to be pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Canon Fodder

Every team (in the respective league) has an equal opportunity to compete.

If that's your rationale, then leagues without salary caps have more competitive balance than leagues WITH salary caps. In MLB or the NHL, you can concoct a different strategy to win every season, there are no money constraints standing in your way. If you choose to spend wildly on players, you can. You face the consequences, but you CAN do it.

In the NFL or NBA, if you want to sign all the free agents on the market to compete, you can't do it, because you are constrained by a limit on what you can spend.

I think you need to revise or clarify your definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every team (in the respective league) has an equal opportunity to compete.

That's a good definition, but unfortunately by using this definition there isn't a single professional sport where this is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by qsilvr2531

That's a good definition, but unfortunately by using this definition there isn't a single professional sport where this is true.

I never claimed there was a perfect league implementing competitive balance...But that doesn't mean that shouldn't be the goal of each league.

I think of it this way..

...If the Yankees (or Red Wings) and Royals (or Panthers) each had equally competent management teams (GMs, coaches, etc), then the Yanks and Wings have a HUGE advantage over the Royals and Panthers just because the both have owners willing to spend for the chance to win.

That's a competitive imbalance. There's nothing wrong with owners that want to win. It just not fair when they have much deeper pockets in which to dig to improve their respective teams. That's not good for the rest of their leagues.

Bad owners (management teams) are bad in any sport. They should be rooted out. However, good ones that are less financially able shouldn't have to play the market perfectly just to compete while lesser teams can blindly spend to fix what ails their rosters.

Will any system be perfect? Probably not, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the playing field as equal as possible and then let the talent on the field decide the winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that payroll and revenue don't have much to do with the depth of an owners pockets. The Red Wings have a huge payroll because of the market they are in, and because of the way that market is used to generate profits. In the same way the Yankees haven't ALWAYS had a competitive advantage (and in fact the Mets are in the same market and don't enjoy the same competitive advantage), they earned the competitive advantage in many respects, their current TV deal being just one example. Put Steinbrenner in Cleveland and he's still got to deal with the fact that he's in Cleveland and not New York, and he's still got to deal with the fact that New York traded for Babe Ruth and Cleveland didn't.

So it's a fine line between giving everyone an equal playing field and giving teams credit for doing things to give themselves an advantage. In baseball, Teams get credit for drafting the right players, and for making the right trades, and they should. But they should also get credit for investing in that latin american scouting combine or investing the that japanese player that opens them up to a new market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that, yankee's fans pay the big salaries...it may seem fair to them but doesn't really create competitive balance either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seems we are the only ones who want to fix the NHL

NHL nets remain empty.

Email Archives

Print Reprint

March 1, 2005 -- THE NHL has published specific details of each proposal it has made to the NHL Players Association within the last three months — but the league has steadfastly refused to disclose any of the financial elements of its revenue-sharing plan for the next CBA.

The Post has obtained the heretofore confidential Feb. 9 NHL revenue sharing model, presented to the PA in Toronto as part of the league's "compromise trigger" proposal. And now that we've been able to review it ourselves, we completely understand all the secrecy.

Analysis of the plan reveals stunning avarice on the part of the NHL's wealthiest franchises — and explains why Commissioner Gary Bettman was able to essentially bribe the big markets into going along for the lockout ride but now faces an insurrection from those clubs as the Board of Governors prepares to meet today in Manhattan.

It also explains why the small markets remain so militantly opposed to unlocking the rinks until the league gains a punitive hard cap.

Based on reported revenues for 2003-04 and a cap plan under which the players would receive 54 percent of a $2.082 billion gross, with each club assigned a hypothetical payroll of $34 million, the league would mandate a total revenue-sharing pool of $88.9M, with only $42.9M flowing from the top 10 revenue producers to the bottom 15 — with the remaining $46M created by taxing playoff gate receipts, regardless of the financial status of the postseason participants.

Remarkably, this model would increase the percentage of overall league-wide revenue-sharing from 11 percent to just 12 percent — this to a great extent created by the NHL's projected $64.8M decline in television revenue. By comparison, the NFL shares 63 percent of its revenue; the NBA, 35 percent; and even Major League Baseball divvies up 26 percent.

The NHL's seven top revenue-generating franchises — Toronto, Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, the Rangers and Montreal — produce $661 million. Under the league's revenue-sharing plan, these teams would contribute only $38.2 million to the pool — a paltry 5.78 percent of their combined gross earnings.

As a combined result of the meager revenue-sharing and an artificially low hard cap, these seven teams would reap windfall profits right out of the box under this proposed CBA. Assuming level revenue, the Maple Leafs project a profit of $38.8M; the Red Wings, a profit of $30M; the Avalanche, $26.1M; the Stars, $25.7M; the Flyers, $22.5M; the Canadiens, $20.4M; and, the Rangers a profit of $17.8M.

At the same time, the relatively small total that would flow to the 15 poorest teams — with the Islanders, Anaheim and Chicago excluded under the plan from receiving aid because they're located in TV markets with more than 2.5 million households — would be at best a Band-Aid fix for the NHL's neediest franchises.

Indeed, even upon implementation of the plan, the league projects that 11 teams would lose money in the first year. The Mighty Ducks are projected to lose $12.8M. The Islanders would lose $11.3M; the Blackhawks, $10.6M; Phoenix, $10.3M. Incredible. What happened to the pledge of "guaranteed profits for all"?

What's more, the NHL intends to eliminate revenue-sharing entirely — entirely — as league-wide revenues increase. The league assumes that the imposition of a cap will create greater parity and thus, automatically increase the gate receipts taken in by small-market franchises. This, of course ignores empirical evidence from places like Nashville, where, despite a franchise-best 91 points and first-ever playoff berth, the Predators' attendance declined last year for the fifth straight season.

It's clear that Bettman has made different promises to different, and indeed, competing constituencies within the Board. The large-market franchises want to stuff their pockets. The small-market clubs want to suppress payrolls. And so the players are forced to pay . . . and pay . . . and pay.

The players, that is . . . plus the thousands in the industry who have already lost their jobs . . . plus the game, itself.

It's been a shell game all along. The league's revenue sharing model simply ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^proves it.

http://nypost.com/sports/40560.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Canon Fodder

Consider the source before placing too much faith in the article.

good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,493
    • Total Posts
      2,884,588
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...