Jump to content

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)


Dead

  

130 members have voted

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27


Recommended Posts

Here's a good read that I don't think has been posted here yet.

http://business.time.../#ixzz2FYMi9iqM

Quote

More to the point, contraction might not be necessary if NHL owners would only grow up. The problem in hockey, as ESPN The Magazine‘s Peter Keating recently explained, is that NHL owners don’t share enough of their own money with each other. And share they must, because the nature of the NHL’s “popularity” in the U.S.—intense interest among small pockets of local fans, consistent disinterest otherwise—translates into paltry national TV contracts. As a result, Keating writes, NHL teams “share a far tinier proportion of their revenues than teams in other sports do, because NHL clubs rely much more on local media deals for money than on national TV contracts.” So big-market teams, with lots of local TV money, spend more on player salaries, forcing small-market owners to choose between paying their players more than they can afford or putting a subpar product on the ice. Either choice has unpleasant financial consequences.

This has long been a problem, of course, for all major sport leagues. But we’ve known for a while that the way mature owners and strong commissioners have to deal with this imbalance is to share revenues between teams. Practically, this allows all teams to be competitive, ensuring a consistent and popular product. Philosophically, this recognizes the we’re-all-in-this-together aspect of professional sports leagues, one of the more curious economic constructs in history. It’s not a coincidence that the most successful North American sports league also has the most rational approach to revenue sharing. Some 60% of the NFL’s $11 billion revenue pie is shared, which is why tiny Green Bay, Wisconsin can compete with big bad New York or Chicago. The other two Big Three leagues aren’t quite as egalitarian but have improved their models in recent years: MLB teams share nearly a third of local TV revenue, while NBA teams reportedly approach a 50% total revenue share (give or take a few complex calculations).

The NHL, meanwhile, has been sharing 4.5% of its $3.3 billion revenue (with not much more on the table in current talks.

Wow! So in a nutshell, regarding pro sports league revenue sharing:

NFL close to 60%

NBA close to 50%

MLB close to 33%

NHL 4.5%

That's ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am now watching all the clips of Kovalchuk's primary and secondary assists.

This.

Has.

To.

Stop.

Seriously... I'm tired of the games, I'm tired of the posturing... I realize there's a 'script' so to speak that they're following, but really- enough is enough. It's December 26 and they can't even agree to meet? Bullsh!t. For the good of the game- stop the games, put ypur dumb-ass fvcking egos aside, and GET A DEAL. I'm sick of my fvcking sport being hijacked by a$$holes. I want hockey back, and I want it back soon. I can't take this sh!t anymore.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much they can push it anymore...the deadline for the disclaimer of interest paperwork is in a frigging week. There's two-three weeks at most before the 48-game 'cutoff point' - though I wouldn't put it past the owners to be bluffing on that too, especially since their deadline was mid-February last time. Unfortunately I think Fehr's just as skeptical of mid-January being the cutoff without a hard, public date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! So in a nutshell, regarding pro sports league revenue sharing:

NFL close to 60%

NBA close to 50%

MLB close to 33%

NHL 4.5%

That's ridiculous.

It is...problem is though most of the profit is made by a handful of teams in the NHL. It's not really practical for five teams to sustain the entire league, so you have these draconian CBA proposals since the owners' choice is to either play Robin Hood or reduce the players' share to an equitable level compared to those other sports to at least put a band-aid on the bleeding. And fwiw, the MLB revenue sharing only includes TV money, which is substantial but not the whole pie by any means.

Edited by NJDevs4978
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is...problem is though most of the profit is made by a handful of teams in the NHL. It's not really practical for five teams to sustain the entire league, so you have these draconian CBA proposals since the owners' choice is to either play Robin Hood or reduce the players' share to an equitable level compared to those other sports to at least put a band-aid on the bleeding. And fwiw, the MLB revenue sharing only includes TV money, which is substantial but not the whole pie by any means.

Or maybe institute a luxury tax, which is by far the most sensible option when you have a league with a few massive teams and then an even distribution around those clubs. Or, better yet, dilute the big market teams' market somewhat by adding another team which could also generate substantial revenues, rather than propping up failing franchises.

This might be a lot simpler if NHL owners + GMs knew how to run franchises, but they do not.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@TGfireandice: RT @Real_ESPNLeBrun: An NHL player says the NHL made a new offer to the NHLPA on Thursday, one which moved on contract term limits, buyouts and variance...

@TGfireandice: RT @DarrenDreger: Among the changes in the new proposal, the NHL adjusted its max contract length from 5 to 6 yrs. Boosted the variance from 5% to 10%

@TGfireandice: RT @Real_ESPNLeBrun: New offer sees each team afforded one compliance buyout prior to 2013-14 season. Doesn't count vs. cap but it does vs. players' share

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone feel this offer is a substantial improvement?

I don't, but it doesn't have to be for the players to sign up for something resembling this. All the players need is the perception that they got something out of the NHL - that they may have lost, but in the end the NHL had to lose something it wanted, too.

Assuming this offer did happen (I'm staying off Twitter for the moment because I want to watch Russia-US later today), it puts a lie to the notion that the NHL doesn't care to have a season. My guess for the next move, and I've been wrong a lot here, is that Fehr will come back with a public counter offer that's similar but includes more Make Whole money, and the owners will retreat to their Atlas Shrugged bunker to try to pretend like they're not terrified of missing the entire year.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two ways to look at that tweet: either the owners are trying to make the PA feel like they've won and are putting it out there on purpose, or that wasn't supposed to get out and Fehr will now smell blood in the water. When it comes to these two groups, your guess is as good as mine lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SunGarrioch: My sources say owners have privately informed Bettman cancelling the season is not an acceptable option.

I mean, Garroich is not the best source, but I've been saying this since the beginning - Fehr has the season cancellation in his back pocket, not the owners. The owners are going to get a great CBA out of this no matter where they eventually end up. The players have to pretend like they are crazy enough to torch their own paychecks in order to get anything out of ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the age of Twitter, anyone can say anything and said it was shared by any source (could be anybody). I'm not getting excited about any lockout-related news anymore, I've been getting burned on a bi-weekly basis. They've pushed us so far that I'm on the brink of not even caring anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.