DFCaper Posted December 12, 2013 Report Posted December 12, 2013 It wasn't that long ago that the same system kept Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa from closing up shop. I also makes for a better league. The NFL has the best profit sharing scheme, and as a result it is the best league. No way Green Bay would be able to field the team they do without the profit sharing. Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
guyser Posted December 12, 2013 Report Posted December 12, 2013 . No way Green Bay would be able to field the team they do without the profit sharing. I dont think thats accurate . Green Bay, and all others, have their players salaries covered with the shared TV revenue prior to the first game. Quote
Boges Posted December 12, 2013 Author Report Posted December 12, 2013 Green Bay is one of the better run teams in the NFL. They're like the Saskatchewan Roughriders of the NFL. Locally owned and run. The NFL is such a popular league overall that it really doesn't matter if people show up to games or not for teams to be profitable. It's all about TV rights. Quote
Mighty AC Posted December 12, 2013 Report Posted December 12, 2013 The NFL shares TV revenue, merchandise sales and licensing deals equally, which is why teams like Green Bay can exist. If like in baseball, they had to survive on their own media deal and merchandise sales their revenues would drop significantly. This structure creates a very healthy league, but also punishes the franchises like Dallas, Pittsburgh, NYG, etc. that do most of the heavy lifting. All in all, this model has created far more total value for owners and fans alike. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
Boges Posted December 12, 2013 Author Report Posted December 12, 2013 The NFL shares TV revenue, merchandise sales and licensing deals equally, which is why teams like Green Bay can exist. If like in baseball, they had to survive on their own media deal and merchandise sales their revenues would drop significantly. This structure creates a very healthy league, but also punishes the franchises like Dallas, Pittsburgh, NYG, etc. that do most of the heavy lifting. All in all, this model has created far more total value for owners and fans alike. Baseball has a very healthy revenue sharing deal. And because they don't have a salary cap/floor, teams can make money by just pocketing the revenue sharing cheque (see the Marlins and Astros) Quote
guyser Posted December 12, 2013 Report Posted December 12, 2013 Baseball has a very healthy revenue sharing deal. Not sure about the validity of this....but one thing we can agree on is.....many teams are thankful for the Yankees ! Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Revenue sharing pretty much puts them on the same level. REports indicate $45m of the $70m cap will be the level of support for the shit teams...Panthers Columbus et al Revenue sharing doesn't mean all teams get equal revenue. It wasn't that long ago that the same system kept Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa from closing up shop. Wasn't the system so much as the rise in the loonie. The new CBA and cap helped some, obviously, but none of those teams were in any real danger in this century. Quote
guyser Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Revenue sharing doesn't mean all teams get equal revenue. I knew that, hope I didnt give the impression that was the case.. What I tried to say is that the low lifes, Panthers et al, would be able to compete when they are brought up to the 45 of 70M floor in salaries. Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 I knew that, hope I didnt give the impression that was the case.. What I tried to say is that the low lifes, Panthers et al, would be able to compete when they are brought up to the 45 of 70M floor in salaries. Cap floor is going to be around $52M next year. Couple of things: teams in tough financial straits will still struggle to meet that floor even with revenue sharing and TV money. Salaries will rise accordingly as well (watch for P.K. Subban to get around $8 or $9 million next season), which means crappy teams will pay more for the same.I just don't see a scenario whereby these teams are able to dig themselves out into respectability financially or on the ice. Quote
guyser Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 Cap floor is going to be around $52M next year. Couple of things: teams in tough financial straits will still struggle to meet that floor even with revenue sharing and TV money. Salaries will rise accordingly as well (watch for P.K. Subban to get around $8 or $9 million next season), which means crappy teams will pay more for the same.I just don't see a scenario whereby these teams are able to dig themselves out into respectability financially or on the ice. 14-15 is expected to be $71M , and of that ,rev share teams will be paid $45M of that. They should be in a good spot to compete Quote
Black Dog Posted December 13, 2013 Report Posted December 13, 2013 14-15 is expected to be $71M , and of that ,rev share teams will be paid $45M of that. They should be in a good spot to compete Point is though, welfare revenue sharing alone isn't enough. It might help keep their heads above water, but if they are otherwise losing money, it's a band aid over a gushing wound. Quote
Mighty AC Posted December 16, 2013 Report Posted December 16, 2013 Wasn't the system so much as the rise in the loonie. The new CBA and cap helped some, obviously, but none of those teams were in any real danger in this century. The low loonie and no-cap made it very tough on the small market Canadian clubs. Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa all required financial help. Even with the aid, Edmonton barely survived in the late 90's. In fact, Peter Pocklington's holding company was in receivership and a deal was essentially done to move the club to Houston in 98. It was only saved at the last minute by a consortium of 38 owners (one of which was Todd McFarlane creator of the Spawn comics) who wanted to keep the struggling franchise in Edmonton. Pocklington ultimately sold the club to the consortium for something like 25 million less than what the Houston group had offered. Quote "Our lives begin to end the day we stay silent about the things that matter." - Martin Luther King Jr"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
overthere Posted December 19, 2013 Report Posted December 19, 2013 The revenue sharing in hockey is limited to those chunks of cash that come to the league, which is primarily league wide TV contracts in Canada and US, and some merchadising bucks. There is no profit sharing between teams, each team has several local sources of money that they get to keep: local or regional TV and Radio and very importantly ticket sales. Floridas days are limited, they will have trouble meeting the cap floor, and won't have to worry about the cap limit. Without much greater ticket sales, Florida will lose more and more every year. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
guyser Posted December 19, 2013 Report Posted December 19, 2013 The revenue sharing in hockey is limited to those chunks of cash that come to the league, which is primarily league wide TV contracts in Canada and US, and some merchadising bucks. There is no profit sharing between teams, each team has several local sources of money that they get to keep: local or regional TV and Radio and very importantly ticket sales. .Ticket sales are included in revenue from which revenue sharing is paid out from. Quote
overthere Posted December 19, 2013 Report Posted December 19, 2013 Ticket sales are included in revenue from which revenue sharing is paid out from. Are you talking about revenue sharing between teams in the league, or revenue splits between teams and players? Because I don't think there is any sharing of ticket sale revenue between teams. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
guyser Posted December 19, 2013 Report Posted December 19, 2013 Are you talking about revenue sharing between teams in the league, or revenue splits between teams and players? Because I don't think there is any sharing of ticket sale revenue between teams. Ticket sales for the regular season and 35% of gate receipts from playoff games. Quote
overthere Posted December 20, 2013 Report Posted December 20, 2013 Ticket sales for the regular season and 35% of gate receipts from playoff games. That is not what it says in the collective agreement from January 2013. NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of 6.055 percent of HRR (as defined for purposes of calculating Players’ Share) in each year, provided that in no year shall the total Revenue Sharing Pool exceed the amount necessary to fund recipient Clubs “up to the Midpoint” (i.e., the total amount necessary to fund all Clubs with Available Team Player Compensation amounts below the Adjusted Midpoint up to the Adjusted Midpoint (or from the Minimum Team Player 6% of gross revenue is set aside for possible dispersal to the bottom feeders to enable them to have revenue equal to the midpoint between the bottom floor and top floor of that eyars salary cap. 50% of that 6% comes from the top ten grossing clubs, the other clubs provide the balance. There is no way teams like the Leafs would cough up all their profit to support Nashville and Florida and Tampa etc. The reason they are such a valuable franchise is not just gross revenue, it is retained revenue. http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_Proposed_CBA_-_Summary_of_Terms_FINAL_-_Jan._12,_2013%20(1).pdf Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
guyser Posted December 20, 2013 Report Posted December 20, 2013 That is not what it says in the collective agreement from January 2013.In the latter , yes it says exaclty what I printed, 35% of gate receipts for playoff revenue is kicked. HRR includes, gate receipts, concessions ,broqadcasting agreements, signage, dqasher boards, parking, Video game sales and likenesses (and more) No one is asking nor suggesting the LEafs cough up all their profit. No idea where that came from . Quote
Boges Posted December 30, 2013 Author Report Posted December 30, 2013 After a really rough start to the month they finished strong. 8 of 10 available points in the past week and a bit. The loss of Bozak, I believe, is a major contributing factor to their slide. He comes back last night and BOOM! 3 points. Quote
Boges Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Posted January 2, 2014 One hell of a game yesterday. Bernier has won the starting job for sure now. Quote
Boges Posted January 15, 2014 Author Report Posted January 15, 2014 Seeing the Leafs hold on to a multi-goal lead in Boston almost hurts more considering what happened last May. So sad. Quote
guyser Posted January 15, 2014 Report Posted January 15, 2014 Seeing the Leafs hold on to a multi-goal lead in Boston almost hurts more considering what happened last May. So sad. Come on...you thought when Boston scored their third goal that they would get a fourth and fifth and lose the game like I did....right? Quote
overthere Posted January 16, 2014 Report Posted January 16, 2014 No shootouts in the playoffs, assuming they make the playoffs Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
guyser Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 Hey...5 in a row, gotta start planning the route dont we? Good to see, keep it going tonite in Colorado and stay out the mary jane shops til after the game Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.