Jump to content

Spreading the Wealth


Guest OH1FlyersFan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting article on the revenue sharing proposals made by both the owners and the players - though the focus is primarily on the players' proposal.

I know I'm probably in the minority but this whole concept of revenue sharing, subsidization, spreading the wealth, whatever you want to call it, just galls me.

The Flyers are fortunate to be a revenue positive team. That should be rewarded, not penalized. Why should money the Flyers organization earns (I'm contributing as I do buy tickets and merchandise) bail out a team like the Blue Jackets because it can't generate its own revenue? Let the market work. I want my money to go to the development of my team. If they have no fans, so be it. Move the team or let it fold. Shrink the league.

The interesting thing about the players' proposal is that they would pay for increased revenue sharing (more teams would be eligible) by reducing players salaries. Good for the players. Not a bad move. More teams mean more jobs. Makes sense that they would make that sacrifice. But how is everyone else contributing? The League can't get a lucrative tv deal to help cover the cost. The owners won't reduce ticket prices, no sir, to help cover the cost of expanded revenue sharing.

So where does that leave us? We, the fans, pay more, the players get paid less, the owners stand pat, maybe even make a little more money, and crappy, mismanaged, bankrupt (or at least financially troubled) teams keep limping along digging themselves into an even deeper hole despite being subsidized by wealthier teams. I don't see the sense in any of it. Just not a fan of revenue sharing.

Here endeth the rant!

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/trust-fix-nhl-revenue-sharing-owners-players-155103013--nhl.html;_ylt=Asd2Ro8dXhftfiq0mahn2LR7vLYF;_ylu=X3oDMTN1bG5icnAyBG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOSEwEcGtnAzAxMTIwYzkwLTdiOTAtMzU5NS05MGY0LWI4Yjc2MjE3MDI1OARwb3MDMwRzZWMDbWVnYXRyb24EdmVyA2QxZDAwOTAwLWViYjctMTFlMS05NzJmLWNlYWFkNzQ2N2NlMQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFoYWo1YzR1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuaGwEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I similarly an galled by the revenue sharing. It just doesn't seem right.

In one sense, I get it, because The Salary Cap basically limits what every team can spend and without revenue sharing (and to a large extent even with it) teams like the Flyers would simply make astronomical amounts of money more than teams like the Blue Jackets, but because they wouldn't be allowed to spend any more than the Blue Jackets on players and personnel it would all be sheer profit in the pockets of the owners -unless they decided to lower their ticket prices to reflect how much more money they're making than their competitors which has a snow ball in hell fat chance of happening.

But quite frankly, I didn't ask for all these NHL teams. And quite frankly, if they can't get the butts in the seats it takes to sustain a team, then maybe they shouldn't have a team.

I think the Cap is a fair idea. Though I think it could be a little higher to stop handcuffing profitable teams.

Revenue sharing makes sense, but only if you're sympathetic to the Blue Jackets, Panthers and other teams that can't quite keep their heads above water.

I'll never forget when the Flyers tried to explain why the NHL forced them to pay the Wild to sign Kim Johnson away from us. We weren't allowed to pay Kim what he wanted, but because of profit sharing, we technically paid for part of his new salary in MN.

Just seems wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why the Flyers and other profitable teams should send anything to some lame market team with a cheap owner who is more concerned with lining his pockets than paying to put a good team on the ice. Let those teams fold up, and disperse the good players and you will have a stronger league and more skill on the teams.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read the opinions of fans of a team owned by Comcast. What about the fans of those teams that love hockey every bit as much as we do, or maybe spend more than we do trying to help their struggling franchise?

Revenue sharing is successful in other sports, why not here? Why does a salary cap upset anybody? $14 million a year contract potential isn't enough to play hockey?

I sincerely hope someday you understand what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise. Maybe then you'll understand that not every city has the size of Philly... And not every franchise has a billion dollar highway robbery scheme (Comcast) backing it up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read the opinions of fans of a team owned by Comcast. What about the fans of those teams that love hockey every bit as much as we do, or maybe spend more than we do trying to help their struggling franchise?

Revenue sharing is successful in other sports, why not here? Why does a salary cap upset anybody? $14 million a year contract potential isn't enough to play hockey?

I sincerely hope someday you understand what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise. Maybe then you'll understand that not every city has the size of Philly... And not every franchise has a billion dollar highway robbery scheme (Comcast) backing it up.

How is revenue sharing successful in other sports, in baseball the big market teams always seem to be in the playoffs same for basketball but the only sport it seems to work is football and a lot has to do with the big tv contract they have which is split between all teams. I don't mind the salary cap but they'll have to lower the cap minimum level to 50% of the cap total instead of only $16 million difference between cap limit and minimum limit. Maybe the most one player's yearly cap hit can be in one year is 10% of the total cap instead of 20%. As for understanding what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise, no offence but why should Flyers fans or any other big market team fans feel bad for fans of small market teams. Is it the Flyers fans fault that other teams have had bad management or ownership, or owners who don't care about the on-ice product, they just care about the bottom line. There's at least 6 teams the NHL should get rid of and make it a 24 team league which would be better for the league. If teams don't have fans who will support the team then maybe they shouldn't have a team in the league and maybe don't put teams in markets where they don't care about hockey in the first place.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is revenue sharing successful in other sports, in baseball the big market teams always seem to be in the playoffs same for basketball but the only sport it seems to work is football ....

Actually the reason it works in the NFL and not AS well in the other two is the NFL has a "hard" cap. No getting around it, no luxury taxes or other ideas to let richer teams spend more. The NBA and MLB have "soft" caps that the wealthier teams frequently spend past because the rules allow exemptions to exceed the caps.

As for understanding what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise, no offence but why should Flyers fans or any other big market team fans feel bad for fans of small market teams. Is it the Flyers fans fault that other teams have had bad management or ownership, or owners who don't care about the on-ice product, they just care about the bottom line.

Says who? So every team in financial straits is there because of bad management? A lot of times it has more to do with making hockey a tradition in the chosen town. Bringing it to people and making it affordable and attractive. Attractive means they have to be competitive. Not right away, but be given the chance to do so by having salary caps and the draft.

I understand you have a wealthy franchise and don't think it's fair that that franchise has to spend money on a weaker one to help keep it afloat. The NFL gives 40% of your ticket sales for the game to the visiting team... how's that for making sure the league stays strong as a whole? There will be franchises that just might fail no matter how the league tries to save them. If that happens, Atlanta moves to Winnipeg. But every time a franchise folds, it hurts EVERY team in the league financially. Most reports you read on the topic will explain the how's and why's of that so I won't go into it here, so they try to avoid it if possible. Simply put... why not let the league examine how to make everyone profitable? Who is it hurting? Not your Flyers... not my Penguins... even the wealthy owners think it is worth pursuing and it's their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the reason it works in the NFL and not AS well in the other two is the NFL has a "hard" cap. No getting around it, no luxury taxes or other ideas to let richer teams spend more

that statement is erroneous; the NFL's tv contract has far more impact than the salary cap, there are 4 major Networks airing the games and creating ad packages around the league. the NHL's deal pales by comparison. sure the cap levels the playing field but not to the point where green bay wisconsin can compete with dallas tx. that's the tv money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting to read the opinions of fans of a team owned by Comcast. What about the fans of those teams that love hockey every bit as much as we do, or maybe spend more than we do trying to help their struggling franchise?

Revenue sharing is successful in other sports, why not here? Why does a salary cap upset anybody? $14 million a year contract potential isn't enough to play hockey?

I sincerely hope someday you understand what it means to be a fan for a near bankrupt franchise. Maybe then you'll understand that not every city has the size of Philly... And not every franchise has a billion dollar highway robbery scheme (Comcast) backing it up.

I think it would help your franchise if it had more stalwart fans like yourself. It really wasn't until the Crosby era that you had interested fans, more than just a hardcore few. And that's grown.....a little. I can't help that. If it's just a matter of size, then why wouldn't the league consider that before locating a team there. Or a team owner. The same thing is happening in Columbus, so I get it. Columbus is a small city, maybe even smaller than Pittsburgh, I'll have to check the census data. And nothing here can compete with OSU football. These are things that should have been considered before making a decision to locate a professional hockey team in town. Nobody should be surprised when the team struggles financially. That's exactly my point. But Bettman charges forward anyways. Not a smart business decision. So the Flyers are supported by Comcast. Why should we be forced to subsidize everyone else just because of that? Should all those 1%'s we keep hearing about be forced to subsidize all those who choose not to work, or who can't? Oh, wait.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the reason it works in the NFL and not AS well in the other two is the NFL has a "hard" cap. No getting around it, no luxury taxes or other ideas to let richer teams spend more. The NBA and MLB have "soft" caps that the wealthier teams frequently spend past because the rules allow exemptions to exceed the caps.

Says who? So every team in financial straits is there because of bad management? A lot of times it has more to do with making hockey a tradition in the chosen town. Bringing it to people and making it affordable and attractive. Attractive means they have to be competitive. Not right away, but be given the chance to do so by having salary caps and the draft.

And being competitive often means you have to spend money. Some teams have continually demonstrated either an unwillingness or an inability to spend money to make their franchises competitive, which affects revenue. Why should the Flyers subsidize cheapskates and poor businesses? This is not homerism. If the Flyers were in that situation, why should the Rangers and Wings subsidize them? The fans of Pittsburgh or Phoenix or Winnipeg or even Philly don't 'deserve' a team. No one deserves a team. It's a business, and if your metro area can support one, great. My city doesn't have a lot of things because it can't support it. Am I gonna go out and say that others in the industry should subsidize one in my area?

Simply put... why not let the league examine how to make everyone profitable? Who is it hurting? Not your Flyers... not my Penguins... even the wealthy owners think it is worth pursuing and it's their money.

To answer the first question, because it's a business. I find it interesting - and without making any attempt at guessing your political leanings - that there are many people who would believe in a redistributive model for millionaires and billionaires playing a game and running a business, but not so much for society as a whole. Kinda baffles my mind. But I digress.

I don't think the Flyers would be hurt with fewer teams, but it does hurt the bottom line to subsidize them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer in work for what you get. I'm no supporter of long term welfare or Obama's mentality on carrying the lazy on our backs.

That being said, I DO support revenue sharing to some degree IF it benefits the sport. I agree with some of what's been said in that the teams in question have to be managing their revenue's correctly and not sandbagging to get the extra $$. But I also think its in the long term best interest of the league to expand into new markets and give it a go. Revenue sharing can help teams become solvent in new areas and expand the popularity of the sport.

I'm NOT saying teams should be permitted to be entirely dependent on other teams' revenue for the long haul. There should be a cap where after so much help if the team is still struggling, it's up to the league to move them or fold them.

I just feel a short term structure of revenue sharing is necessary to make the sport we all love more popular. It shouldn't be permanent. A team should be given so much time to stabilize but then that's it.

As for the salary cap.. It needs to stay 100% solid. Luxury tax it like MLB and it'll be pointless to have one.

@mojo1917. Your point on tv shares is valid. The NHL tv shares just rose $125 million from what I read, but I doubt it'll ever compare to the billions the NFL gets regardless of new markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer in work for what you get. I'm no supporter of long term welfare or Obama's mentality on carrying the lazy on our backs.

That being said, I DO support revenue sharing to some degree IF it benefits the sport. I agree with some of what's been said in that the teams in question have to be managing their revenue's correctly and not sandbagging to get the extra $$. But I also think its in the long term best interest of the league to expand into new markets and give it a go. Revenue sharing can help teams become solvent in new areas and expand the popularity of the sport.

I'm NOT saying teams should be permitted to be entirely dependent on other teams' revenue for the long haul. There should be a cap where after so much help if the team is still struggling, it's up to the league to move them or fold them.

I just feel a short term structure of revenue sharing is necessary to make the sport we all love more popular. It shouldn't be permanent. A team should be given so much time to stabilize but then that's it.

As for the salary cap.. It needs to stay 100% solid. Luxury tax it like MLB and it'll be pointless to have one.

@mojo1917. Your point on tv shares is valid. The NHL tv shares just rose $125 million from what I read, but I doubt it'll ever compare to the billions the NFL gets regardless of new markets.

You make a lot of very valid points. I guess I question two things:

1. You talk about expanding into new areas and boosting the popularity of the sport. Even with revenue sharing, will places like Phoenix, Dallas, Columbus, Carolina, and Anaheim ever become real hockey markets? I can't see their balance sheets, but they continually fail to sell out their buildings, and this despite three of them being Cup winners. Those teams get a pop in attendance the year following the Cup, and then tails off into the 70-80% capacity range.

And what about teams like the Islanders, who haven't been competitive in almost three decades now? They have one of the worst attendance records in the league. At some point, you pull the plug. They've had 25-30 years to do something, anything.

Meanwhile, Edmonton has been mediocre to terrible for a long time as well, and the last 5 years (didn't look back any further), they've had a 100% sell out rate each year. That's a clear hockey market. Again, I can't see their balance sheet, so maybe they're losing money as well.

2. Why does the league *need* to expand and boost its popularity? Isn't it possible we've reached a saturation point? And even if we haven't, you always risk diluting your product when you expand into non-traditional markets (but you could also create new markets, point granted). Anyway, point is, capitalism dictates constant expansion... but why can't we just be happy with the league we have (or had)?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually the reason it works in the NFL and not AS well in the other two is the NFL has a "hard" cap. No getting around it, no luxury taxes or other ideas to let richer teams spend more. The NBA and MLB have "soft" caps that the wealthier teams frequently spend past because the rules allow exemptions to exceed the caps.

Says who? So every team in financial straits is there because of bad management? A lot of times it has more to do with making hockey a tradition in the chosen town. Bringing it to people and making it affordable and attractive. Attractive means they have to be competitive. Not right away, but be given the chance to do so by having salary caps and the draft.

I understand you have a wealthy franchise and don't think it's fair that that franchise has to spend money on a weaker one to help keep it afloat. The NFL gives 40% of your ticket sales for the game to the visiting team... how's that for making sure the league stays strong as a whole? There will be franchises that just might fail no matter how the league tries to save them. If that happens, Atlanta moves to Winnipeg. But every time a franchise folds, it hurts EVERY team in the league financially. Most reports you read on the topic will explain the how's and why's of that so I won't go into it here, so they try to avoid it if possible. Simply put... why not let the league examine how to make everyone profitable? Who is it hurting? Not your Flyers... not my Penguins... even the wealthy owners think it is worth pursuing and it's their money.

I get what you're trying to say but you can't compare the NFL to any of the other sports because of the tv deal that they have. There is no doubt that the NFL is the top dog when it comes to sports leagues, and they might have a hard cap but each team receives a big chunk of paying salaries from the tv deal. Do you really think NHL teams giving 40% of their home gate to the visiting teams is going to help the struggling franchises? If revenue sharing can help the weaker teams then fine but how many years do you do that until enough is enough. I'm sorry but the rest of the league shouldn't have to continue helping a struggling franchise like Phoenix, it's been over 3 years since the league took over that team and they still haven't found a new owner. It's time to either fold it or move it to a city like Quebec where the fans will come out and support the team. What about the Islanders or Florida? There should be a limit on how much revenue sharing a team gets and for how long, but as other posters have stated maybe Buttman should do a better job of finding cities that can support the product before awarding franchises.

In the new CBA, what would you consider fair rules for both parties -- 5 year limits on contracts, entry level deals should be 5 years instead of 3[let the young players earn their next contract], yearly cap hit for a player can be no more than 12.5% of the cap [ex. if cap is $70 million, then the most a player's cap hit can be is $8.75 million] instead of the 20% it is now. Maybe the owners should get rid of the guaranteed contracts? It's going to take a miracle for there not to be a lockout next month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that statement is erroneous; the NFL's tv contract has far more impact than the salary cap, there are 4 major Networks airing the games and creating ad packages around the league. the NHL's deal pales by comparison. sure the cap levels the playing field but not to the point where green bay wisconsin can compete with dallas tx. that's the tv money.

While I do agree that the NFL's TV contracts have the biggest impact on revenue sharing, it probably needs to be pointed out that Green Bay Wisconsin was successfully competing with New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia well before the NFL had a network TV contract.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do agree that the NFL's TV contracts have the biggest impact on revenue sharing, it probably needs to be pointed out that Green Bay Wisconsin was successfully competing with New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia well before the NFL had a network TV contract.

true, until that special group of players & coach retired/moved on... then the pack were in the wilderness for 25+ years Don Majkowski was the savior ...anyone ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone find a listing of what teams collect revenue sharing? I'd like to compare it to payroll info, attendance records, and marketing income/expenses. Would be nice to get factual data to know who's profitable vs. who's parasitic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom 10 teams have a chance to collect revenue sharing from the top 15. In order to receive a full share, the team has to hit 80% attendance and show growth. Teams in the bottom 10 not meeting these criteria can collect a reduced portion. I don't know who the bottom ten were this year, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article on the revenue sharing proposals made by both the owners and the players - though the focus is primarily on the players' proposal.

I know I'm probably in the minority but this whole concept of revenue sharing, subsidization, spreading the wealth, whatever you want to call it, just galls me.

The Flyers are fortunate to be a revenue positive team. That should be rewarded, not penalized. Why should money the Flyers organization earns (I'm contributing as I do buy tickets and merchandise) bail out a team like the Blue Jackets because it can't generate its own revenue? Let the market work. I want my money to go to the development of my team. If they have no fans, so be it. Move the team or let it fold. Shrink the league.

The interesting thing about the players' proposal is that they would pay for increased revenue sharing (more teams would be eligible) by reducing players salaries. Good for the players. Not a bad move. More teams mean more jobs. Makes sense that they would make that sacrifice. But how is everyone else contributing? The League can't get a lucrative tv deal to help cover the cost. The owners won't reduce ticket prices, no sir, to help cover the cost of expanded revenue sharing.

So where does that leave us? We, the fans, pay more, the players get paid less, the owners stand pat, maybe even make a little more money, and crappy, mismanaged, bankrupt (or at least financially troubled) teams keep limping along digging themselves into an even deeper hole despite being subsidized by wealthier teams. I don't see the sense in any of it. Just not a fan of revenue sharing.

Here endeth the rant!

http://sports.yahoo....dGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

So what about the teams like the San Jose Sharks? They sold out every game last year and still lost $15,000,000. The only reason they remain competitive is that they have deep pocketed owners willing to spend to the cap to remain competitive even if that means dipping into their personal wealth. More power to them for doing so but that should not be the case.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sharks/ci_21350926/san-jose-sharks-owners-say-theyll-stay-committed?source=rss

Any time this topic comes up the tendency is for the Flyers fan to scold the unprofitable teams, pount their chests about what a great fan base they have and how all the money that Flyers fans sink into their team is the biggest reason they can remain profitable, etc, etc, etc. The Sharks sold out every game. I'll argue their fan base is just as good. Without owners willing to absorb a loss they be just as bad as the Blue Jackets.

Revenue sharing is not just about the teams below the Mason Dixon line that are not drawing. There are teams that ARE drawing and are still losing money. If that is the case then the system is broke.

The fix is simple...somewhere out there is a number where "most" teams in the league will at a minimum break even while spending close to the cap having operating losess offset by revenue sharing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF it benefits the sport

That's the key point right there. That's what we both, what we all, want. Totally agree with you. Perhaps there's just a different perspective on what will benefit the sport. My view is that the sport benefits, that it improves, if the focus is on quality, not quantity. Look for opportunities to shrink the number of teams in the League by separating the wheat from the chaff based on each team's financial strength. Set some standards. Require teams to meet those standards. We have accounting standards for business (GAAP), there should be some sort of standard for professional hockey teams. Maybe there already are. Maybe they need to be stronger. Frankly, some are just flat out mismanaged. Why should a team like the Flyers throw their good money after a brutally mis-managed team's bad money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone find a listing of what teams collect revenue sharing? I'd like to compare it to payroll info, attendance records, and marketing income/expenses. Would be nice to get factual data to know who's profitable vs. who's parasitic.

Oh, great! Now you're going to bring these crazy things called "facts" and "data" into the whole conversation. Dangit. Hehe. I did read somewhere that it's the bottom 15 teams, in terms of revnue, who are eligible for assistance and they are supported by the top 15 teams. Not sure exactly what the mechanism is. But I will fully admit, I don't know exactly how it works. I've just been sharing my opinion based on my limited understanding. Though my reaction to and opinion of the concept of subsidization, at the macro level, will remained unchanged.

EDIT - just saw AJ's post about the bottom 10 teams having a chance to collect revenuw. I'll go with what he said, since I was going from memory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about the teams like the San Jose Sharks? They sold out every game last year and still lost $15,000,000. The only reason they remain competitive is that they have deep pocketed owners willing to spend to the cap to remain competitive even if that means dipping into their personal wealth. More power to them for doing so but that should not be the case.

http://www.mercuryne...tted?source=rss

Any time this topic comes up the tendency is for the Flyers fan to scold the unprofitable teams, pount their chests about what a great fan base they have and how all the money that Flyers fans sink into their team is the biggest reason they can remain profitable, etc, etc, etc. The Sharks sold out every game. I'll argue their fan base is just as good. Without owners willing to absorb a loss they be just as bad as the Blue Jackets.

Revenue sharing is not just about the teams below the Mason Dixon line that are not drawing. There are teams that ARE drawing and are still losing money. If that is the case then the system is broke.

The fix is simple...somewhere out there is a number where "most" teams in the league will at a minimum break even while spending close to the cap having operating losess offset by revenue sharing.

So what about the San Jose Sharks? If they're losing money, they're losing money. That's a bad thing. Even if they have managed to sell out however many times. Something must be wrong. What do you think it is? Maybe they're paying players too much? Ticket prices must not be too high because they're selling out, right? Maybe they should increase ticket prices. Maybe they should look at where they're spending money. I haven't seen their balance sheet, so I have no idea why they're hemorhaging money. Maybe their management is just piss poor. Should the other teams in the league be responsible for that? All I'm saying is, no, they shouldn't.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...