Spreading the Wealth

[Polaris922]

From Forbes magazine...

"During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year."

Mark Sutcliffe wrote....

"Thanks mostly to the stronger dollar, Canada’s seven franchises have a combined profit of $169-million. Despite a couple of financial powerhouses in the Rangers and Red Wings, the 23 American teams combine to lose $42.5-million.

Outside of those few really profitable teams, the NHL consists of the equivalent of a bunch of middle-class families struggling to make ends meet against rising costs, and a couple of impoverished franchises, including one, the Phoenix Coyotes, that survives solely on government welfare."

[B21]

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.

Well that's kinda my point. There is not always a correlation between fan support and profitability.

What do I think? I am guessing their ticket prices are less than a team like the Flyers. Maybe their luxury boxes don't generate as much revenue? Bad arena lease? Not selling enough hot dogs and beers? Does it matter? From what the article insinuates, their losses are due to them spending to the cap. Unless there is some gross mismanagement going (which I doubt) an NHL team that sold out every single game should not be losing money. If that is the case, some combination of revenue sharing and perhaps even a lower cap is in order.

[AndyS]

I'm OK with sharing the profits that are league-related (i.e. tv contracts, marketing, etc.). I'm also OK with a salary cap.

That having been said, none of that helps the fan base of the teams that are not in it to win a championship (but just to turn a profit). That is why I am against spreading the wealth.

Some teams are just content to be the Kansas City Royals of the NHL. The Royals' ownership has tons of money, but they refuse to spend it. KC takes the money they get from MLB's profit-sharing deal and just pockets it. They never put it back into the team.

Newer NHL teams need to do what they can to build their respective fan bases. That means trying to win.

If not, they should never expect to make money (even by bailout).

[OH1FlyersFan]

From Forbes magazine...

"During the 2010-11 season the league posted operating income (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) of $126 million, 21% lower than the previous year. Main reason: Player costs increased 11%, to $59 million. Last season 18 of the league’s 30 teams lost money even before they had to pay bank loans or write down assets, compared with 16 the prior year."

Mark Sutcliffe wrote....

"Thanks mostly to the stronger dollar, Canada’s seven franchises have a combined profit of $169-million. Despite a couple of financial powerhouses in the Rangers and Red Wings, the 23 American teams combine to lose $42.5-million.

Outside of those few really profitable teams, the NHL consists of the equivalent of a bunch of middle-class families struggling to make ends meet against rising costs, and a couple of impoverished franchises, including one, the Phoenix Coyotes, that survives solely on government welfare."

Interesting. Thanks for digging that up, Polaris. Was it from a longer article? I'd like to read the whole thing. Do you have a link?

[OH1FlyersFan]

There is not always a correlation between fan support and profitability.

I see your point. Lack of fan support could be just one factor contributing to why a team is losing money hand over fist. I think it's a big one, though. But I'll concede there are definitely others. Concessions and terms of an arena lease are good examples -- unless, like the Blue Jackets you have casino gambling revenue to bail you out. Those pockets may not be as deep as Comcast's but it's a large amount of money -- and that's just for the arena. Nationwide Insurance, a part owner, makes a lot of money too and it puts its fair share into the team.

But my point goes beyond whatever is causing the financial crisis requiring subsidization and to the fact that I just don't think it's right. I'm a market guy, I believe in competitive markets, letting the market determine price and quantity, and letting the model of supply and demand work without "government", or in this case League, interference.

And AndyS makes an excellent point about the necessity of winning and building the fan base by being, as Randy Jackson would say, in it to win it, baby.

[Polaris922]

Interesting. Thanks for digging that up, Polaris. Was it from a longer article? I'd like to read the whole thing. Do you have a link?

Soon as I can I'll link them for ya. On my phone right now working all night.

[Lindbergh31]

Well that's kinda my point. There is not always a correlation between fan support and profitability.

What do I think? I am guessing their ticket prices are less than a team like the Flyers. Maybe their luxury boxes don't generate as much revenue? Bad arena lease? Not selling enough hot dogs and beers? Does it matter? From what the article insinuates, their losses are due to them spending to the cap. Unless there is some gross mismanagement going (which I doubt) an NHL team that sold out every single game should not be losing money. If that is the case, some combination of revenue sharing and perhaps even a lower cap is in order.

Maybe the league and players should agree that the minimum cap limit should be 50% of what the cap max is, so if the salary cap for teams is $70 million for 2012/13 season then the cap floor should be 50% of that which is $35 million. If teams have a hard time meeting that number then there's something wrong. The whole purpose of the salary cap was to level the playing field for teams to compete. Quite obviously Bettman's vision of having the difference of the cap limit and cap floor be at $16 million isn't working so maybe try something else. Also, why should the players get 57% of the revenue, make it 50/50 and go from there. Maybe adjust the years of entry level deals, lengths of contracts or other things. The league and the players have the ground works regarding the cap, now it's time to make adjustments to improve the salary cap. But if they make adjustments to help improve the chances of more teams making profits and if there are still teams struggling then it's time to get rid of them or relocate them.

[Polaris922]

Maybe the league and players should agree that the minimum cap limit should be 50% of what the cap max is, so if the salary cap for teams is $70 million for 2012/13 season then the cap floor should be 50% of that which is $35 million. If teams have a hard time meeting that number then there's something wrong. The whole purpose of the salary cap was to level the playing field for teams to compete. Quite obviously Bettman's vision of having the difference of the cap limit and cap floor be at $16 million isn't working so maybe try something else. Also, why should the players get 57% of the revenue, make it 50/50 and go from there. Maybe adjust the years of entry level deals, lengths of contracts or other things. The league and the players have the ground works regarding the cap, now it's time to make adjustments to improve the salary cap. But if they make adjustments to help improve the chances of more teams making profits and if there are still teams struggling then it's time to get rid of them or relocate them.

I think the hang up on revenue % is that other leagues who use the 50% figure include more types of revenue than the NHL does in their total figures so 50% is more $$. I read that in several of the CBA threads here. So the 57% is actually around the 50% mark of total revenues anyway.

[mojo1917]

Well that's kinda my point. There is not always a correlation between fan support and profitability.

What do I think? I am guessing their ticket prices are less than a team like the Flyers. Maybe their luxury boxes don't generate as much revenue? Bad arena lease? Not selling enough hot dogs and beers? Does it matter? From what the article insinuates, their losses are due to them spending to the cap. Unless there is some gross mismanagement going (which I doubt) an NHL team that sold out every single game should not be losing money. If that is the case, some combination of revenue sharing and perhaps even a lower cap is in order.

having a good ownership group is nothing to be ashamed of, which is why we "beat our chests" about this, snider meddles too much but he is committed to winning and to icing a good team. he managed his wealth in a way that grew his business into the behemoth it is today, not everyone can be that lucky I understand that, i also know that the way to make a small fortune in pro sports team ownership is to start with a large one.

i wonder if the shark's ownership group is too highly leveraged with debt, it would be interesting to see the balance sheet there, because i agree that a team that sells out every night, shouldn't be losing money. there must be something else dragging the sharks down maybe the HP pavillion lease is awful, but that's a newish building and i thought it was mostly privately funded...

from my own experience in business i have worked for a highly leveraged company; once the debt was acquired we never made a profit, so we turned to EBITDA as a way to measure success. i think of it as utter accounting ******** but the only way management could say that what it was doing was working or not.

another thing to think about is sell outs and attendance aren't always directly relatable. could be that lots of silicon valley tech firms buy those tix for "entertainment" and they go unused so the ancillary gate monies from concessions aren't there.

[brelic]

having a good ownership group is nothing to be ashamed of, which is why we "beat our chests" about this, snider meddles too much but he is committed to winning and to icing a good team. he managed his wealth in a way that grew his business into the behemoth it is today, not everyone can be that lucky I understand that, i also know that the way to make a small fortune in pro sports team ownership is to start with a large one.

i wonder if the shark's ownership group is too highly leveraged with debt, it would be interesting to see the balance sheet there, because i agree that a team that sells out every night, shouldn't be losing money. there must be something else dragging the sharks down maybe the HP pavillion lease is awful, but that's a newish building and i thought it was mostly privately funded...

from my own experience in business i have worked for a highly leveraged company; once the debt was acquired we never made a profit, so we turned to EBITDA as a way to measure success. i think of it as utter accounting ******** but the only way management could say that what it was doing was working or not.

another thing to think about is sell outs and attendance aren't always directly relatable. could be that lots of silicon valley tech firms buy those tix for "entertainment" and they go unused so the ancillary gate monies from concessions aren't there.

I understand that a new business like a team needs time to become profitable. The Sharks have been in the league 21 years, and other than last year's red balance sheet, I don't know what they were like in previous years. But at the end of the day, I would think two decades is long enough to become a profitable enterprise, no?

I agree that if they're not making money while selling the place out, there's something wrong. I can start a lemonade stand and be the most popular one in town and use up all my stock, but if I'm selling at a loss, what's the point?

[BobDailey]

What I pay in taxes to help support people who are not paying their share of real estate taxes and other means of revenue required of working citizens is bad and going to get worse. Without making this a political discussion, I am weary of this manure.

Too many people with expensive tastes, McDonalds burger flipper mental capacity at best and more interested in sneakers, hos and bling, guns and destroying their hearing blasting ghetto anger driving in Toyotas with big wheels that spin with junkyard fenders in primer.

The last thing I will support are millionaire players calling for a communistic wealth sharing so they can have more jobs for franchises that are on corporate welfare since they cannot generate enough income to compete.

Hockey is an expensive sport to play and it was an elitist sport to an extent as well as a geographically defined sport before indoor rinks became more popular, It silll is , by heritage of activity passed down from generation to generation

Not one dollar of revenue from teams that are profitable should go to mismanaged and hopeless franchises. League wide revenue sharing is fine, but no sharing of teams personal wealth from local tv/cable, concessions,parking, boxes, tickets etc.

Filling arenas with cheap tickets to get the 80% level for revene sharing is criminal.

I hate the players for putting forth that proposal, I hate the owners and Bettman too for their positions, especially all the have nots who are Bettmans power base

I have said this before. I hope there is a lockout that breaks this league apart and it comes back contracted, where the strong survive and there is no coprporate welfare. Without Bettman, Phoenix and a host of lingering bedsore franchises in hospice care.

Hockey will not succeed everywhere and they should stop trying to force it everywhere.

[B21]

Maybe the league and players should agree that the minimum cap limit should be 50% of what the cap max is, so if the salary cap for teams is $70 million for 2012/13 season then the cap floor should be 50% of that which is $35 million. If teams have a hard time meeting that number then there's something wrong. The whole purpose of the salary cap was to level the playing field for teams to compete. Quite obviously Bettman's vision of having the difference of the cap limit and cap floor be at $16 million isn't working so maybe try something else. Also, why should the players get 57% of the revenue, make it 50/50 and go from there. Maybe adjust the years of entry level deals, lengths of contracts or other things. The league and the players have the ground works regarding the cap, now it's time to make adjustments to improve the salary cap. But if they make adjustments to help improve the chances of more teams making profits and if there are still teams struggling then it's time to get rid of them or relocate them.

See - I'd go the opposite direction. I'd lower the cap and increase the floor. The two ideas you mentioned (contraction/relocation and an even lower cap floor) aren't likely to be agreed to by the union. The former means less jobs and the latter less of a pool of money for salaries. It's clear some teams will never spend to a $70,000,000 (and climbing) cap. But with revenue sharing, I would think you can have all teams spending between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 and at least breaking even. Let's face it...no team is going to be contracted. Relocated maybe. Not contracted.

I'd be curious to know how the cap in the NFL and NBA has grown. The NHL cap has almost doubled in 7 years, no? $36,000,000-ish after the last CBA? That's insanity.

[OH1FlyersFan]

Soon as I can I'll link them for ya. On my phone right now working all night.

Thanks!

[B21]

@mojo1917

<<< having a good ownership group is nothing to be ashamed of, which is why we "beat our chests" about this, snider meddles too much but he is committed to winning and to icing a good team. he managed his wealth in a way that grew his business into the behemoth it is today, not everyone can be that lucky I understand that, i also know that the way to make a small fortune in pro sports team ownership is to start with a large one. >>>

Kinda my point again. Fan support has nothing to do with Snyder's ability to put a competitive team on the ice from a financial perspective. Forget the meddling. Totally different topic. But taking credit for Snyder's willingjness to spend when the Flyers account for such a small part of his finances is like the Pens taking credit for a great draft by citing the Crosby pick.

<<< i wonder if the shark's ownership group is too highly leveraged with debt, it would be interesting to see the balance sheet there, because i agree that a team that sells out every night, shouldn't be losing money. there must be something else dragging the sharks down maybe the HP pavillion lease is awful, but that's a newish building and i thought it was mostly privately funded... >>>

<<< from my own experience in business i have worked for a highly leveraged company; once the debt was acquired we never made a profit, so we turned to EBITDA as a way to measure success. i think of it as utter accounting ******** but the only way management could say that what it was doing was working or not. >>>

They are debt free.

<<< another thing to think about is sell outs and attendance aren't always directly relatable. could be that lots of silicon valley tech firms buy those tix for "entertainment" and they go unused so the ancillary gate monies from concessions aren't there. >>>

True but for this arguement I don't care if there is a fanny in the seat...only if that seat is paid for. Back to the "not enough beer and hot dogs". From what I have seen of Sharks games (few) the majority of their fans show up. If they sell 100% and 90% show, is that 10% difference in what they would get from concessions really a make or break number?

If it is....system is still broken.

[B21]

I see your point. Lack of fan support could be just one factor contributing to why a team is losing money hand over fist. I think it's a big one, though. But I'll concede there are definitely others. Concessions and terms of an arena lease are good examples -- unless, like the Blue Jackets you have casino gambling revenue to bail you out. Those pockets may not be as deep as Comcast's but it's a large amount of money -- and that's just for the arena. Nationwide Insurance, a part owner, makes a lot of money too and it puts its fair share into the team.

But my point goes beyond whatever is causing the financial crisis requiring subsidization and to the fact that I just don't think it's right. I'm a market guy, I believe in competitive markets, letting the market determine price and quantity, and letting the model of supply and demand work without "government", or in this case League, interference.

And AndyS makes an excellent point about the necessity of winning and building the fan base by being, as Randy Jackson would say, in it to win it, baby.

Keep in mind the casino revenue is for the arena only. It's not like there is money from the casino hitting the Pens balance sheet year after year. A certain percentage of casino revenue along with contributions from the Pens go to paying down the cost to build the arena each year for the next 30 years (28 now). If the Pens hit the skids again 10-15 years from now after Malkin, Crosby, Fleury & Co. have retired and fan support dwindles to the point where they start losing money, there will be no casino to save them.

I'm a market guy like you. Hooray Capitalism. If a bank fails...see ya. But (and I don't think it will happen) do you really want to see less teams? Half of the teams lost money last year if you believe the owners. If there is no change to the system and the truly unprofitable/unsustainable teams "go away" then the NHL will be down to what...20 teams?

That would relegate the league to a niche sport somewhere between Arena League Football and Bowling.

Andy is right to a point but it's hard to build a winning team when you really don't have the money to spend...by money I mean hockey money and not an owner dipping in to his own wealth. It's also hard to build an expansion team into a winner right of the bat. The Flyers were able to do that...you were contending pretty much right out of the gate and started drawing to near capacity just before the SC seasons and have been in contention every season since aside from 06-07. Plus you have one of the largets populations to draw from. It's easy to be you.

At the end of the day I don't have a problem with the big guys helping out the little guys when they are down as long as the little guys are making an effort. Unlike baseball where revenue sharing can be pocketed, I want it mandated that shared NHL revenue must be used on player expenses with the majority going towards player salaries. That would avoid Andy's Kansas City Royals problem.

[mojo1917]

@mojo1917

<<< having a good ownership group is nothing to be ashamed of, which is why we "beat our chests" about this, snider meddles too much but he is committed to winning and to icing a good team. he managed his wealth in a way that grew his business into the behemoth it is today, not everyone can be that lucky I understand that, i also know that the way to make a small fortune in pro sports team ownership is to start with a large one. >>>

Kinda my point again. Fan support has nothing to do with Snyder's ability to put a competitive team on the ice from a financial perspective. Forget the meddling. Totally different topic. But taking credit for Snyder's willingjness to spend when the Flyers account for such a small part of his finances is like the Pens taking credit for a great draft by citing the Crosby pick.

<<< i wonder if the shark's ownership group is too highly leveraged with debt, it would be interesting to see the balance sheet there, because i agree that a team that sells out every night, shouldn't be losing money. there must be something else dragging the sharks down maybe the HP pavillion lease is awful, but that's a newish building and i thought it was mostly privately funded... >>>

<<< from my own experience in business i have worked for a highly leveraged company; once the debt was acquired we never made a profit, so we turned to EBITDA as a way to measure success. i think of it as utter accounting ******** but the only way management could say that what it was doing was working or not. >>>

They are debt free.

<<< another thing to think about is sell outs and attendance aren't always directly relatable. could be that lots of silicon valley tech firms buy those tix for "entertainment" and they go unused so the ancillary gate monies from concessions aren't there. >>>

True but for this arguement I don't care if there is a fanny in the seat...only if that seat is paid for. Back to the "not enough beer and hot dogs". From what I have seen of Sharks games (few) the majority of their fans show up. If they sell 100% and 90% show, is that 10% difference in what they would get from concessions really a make or break number?

If it is....system is still broken.

you're right, whenever i've seen games on TV that building it looks full, when i've been to the building (not on my dime so i don't know the ticket price) it was near capacity.

I don't know the answer to why they're not making money, i was just spit balling.

I'm not a huge market guy though, markets when left to their own devices created derivatives which is a thing that is worth something, only if something else is worth something... wtf yayy markets ? markets on without oversight can allow for some stupidly dangerous stuff. I do know the cost of doing business shouldn't prevent you from making a profit that's for damn sure.

[B21]

you're right, whenever i've seen games on TV that building it looks full, when i've been to the building (not on my dime so i don't know the ticket price) it was near capacity.

I don't know the answer to why they're not making money, i was just spit balling.

I'm not a huge market guy though, markets when left to their own devices created derivatives which is a thing that is worth something, only if something else is worth something... wtf yayy markets ? markets on without oversight can allow for some stupidly dangerous stuff. I do know the cost of doing business shouldn't prevent you from making a profit that's for damn sure.

As was I (spitballing).

But the Sharks situation got me curious so....

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/stars/post/_/id/13315/stars-have-cheapest-ticket-in-nhl

Average ticket price for the Sharks last year was $49.73. Since we're on the Flyers side of the forum....your average ticket price was $66.89 (the highest of all U.S. markets by the way).

HP Pavilion has a capaity of 17,562 for hockey. With 41 homes games, in theory they will generate $35,807,000 in revenue just from tickets.

The WF Center has a capacity of 19,537. Same equation and you get $53,580,000 in revenue just from tickets. Big gap. That's two Crosbys.

I'll guess that the advantage for a team like the Flyers over the Sharks in other revenue (merchandise, concenssions, parking, advertising) is probably equally proportionately higher.

So now I have two questions...

1) If the Sharks charged "Flyer" prices would they still sell out every game? Maybe.

2) Should the Flyers have an advantage over the Sharks on the ice because their fans are willing to pay more to attend a game? No (my opinion).

The Sharks aren't the best example since their owners are willing to take a loss to put a good team on the ice but you see where I am going with this.

[flyerrod]

@B21

I think the players have a huge issue with what the Owners consider Hockey Related Revenue. As in what the owners are also pulling out of the pot so to speak and claiming that certain monies don't count towards the amount of revenue lowering the amount available to the percentage of the split.

[brelic]

1) If the Sharks charged "Flyer" prices would they still sell out every game? Maybe.

2) Should the Flyers have an advantage over the Sharks on the ice because their fans are willing to pay more to attend a game? No (my opinion).

1. Good question... if their team is competitive (which it has been over the last number of years), then they should still be able to sell out the place. But what about the other options for your sports entertainment dollar in the San Jose area (note, I've never been there, so if these teams are not in the area or some are missing, my bad):

San Fran Giants - $23.28 (MLB average is $26.98)

San Fran 49ers - $23.79 (lowest in the NFL; highest was NY Giants at $332; average is $241.72).

Oakland Raiders - $108.89 (still below NFL average)

Golden State Warriors - $39 (NBA average is $48.48)

The average NHL ticket last year was $57.10, which still puts the Sharks below the average price. But, other than the Raiders, the Sharks have the most expensive tickets for a winter sport in a state that doesn't see snow. If the Sharks used the Flyers pricing model, they would have made a $18m in additional revenue, which in theory should put them on the plus side of the ledger.

But then if fans in San Jose won't pay that price, doesn't that signify that the market there won't support/sustain a team in the NHL? Which leads nicely into your 2nd question...

2. Let's rephrase that another way... for argument's sake, should Comcast be financially penalized because San Jose's market can't support higher prices? If you think so, then I'm sure you'd have more than one owner thinking long and hard about their investment into an NHL team. Not to bring this in the political and social realm, but if the Flyers shouldn't have an advantage over the Sharks because they're willing to pay more, why should a wealthy citizen have an advantage over a regular citizen for medical care because he's willing to pay more? Or why should Joe Thornton have a much much nicer car and much much bigger house than me because he's willing to pay more? Even the redistribution of tax dollars in social programs and safety nets won't give me anywhere near Thornton's purchasing power.

The only point I'm trying to make with those parallels is that why should hockey be some sort of share-the-wealth dream when the rest of American society is not structured that way?

I really do see your point, and I'm not disagreeing with you (though it seems that way, lol). I'm just playing devil's advocate

[idahophilly]

@B21

I think the players have a huge issue with what the Owners consider Hockey Related Revenue. As in what the owners are also pulling out of the pot so to speak and claiming that certain monies don't count towards the amount of revenue lowering the amount available to the percentage of the split.

That's what I heard Flyerrod but I can't remember where i read it. Baseball (or is it football) and basketball count just about EVERY revenue stream into the 50-50 splits that they have. Parking, consessions, t-shirts, caps, pictures, jerseys, ect... The NHL doesn't so last time around the players scored their 57% number because the owners gather up all those residules. So the Owners current 43% is probably close to 50% if all that was considered. So if they go to a 50-50 split under current rules then the players share drops to a "real" 43% if using the other major sports as a baseline... I guess my point is, it seems fair right where it is. Or it's possible my math is off and I got confused because this really is confusing....

[idahophilly]

Just poking fun and totally get your point but about the snow issue, you might want to check out the Sierra Nevada Mtn Range...

[brelic]

Just poking fun and totally get your point but about the snow issue, you might want to check out the Sierra Nevada Mtn Range...

I take it that was for me? You know what I mean

You know what? Maybe a rink is a great place to get away from the heat in those summer states! Ahh, to dream of warmer climates!!

[idahophilly]

I take it that was for me? You know what I mean

You know what? Maybe a rink is a great place to get away from the heat in those summer states! Ahh, to dream of warmer climates!!

LOL!

Just messing around. My sports minds is shriveling up.

Here is another question... So if they roll back salaries that are under current contracts, does the team pay them the difference (but doesn't count against the cap)...? And 2nd, isn't the real issue revenue sharing which is a quarrel between owners themselves and not the players? I'm gonna start a thread on this....

[HockeyFan]

It's funny how this conversation can really only happen in sports. Apple would never revenue share with HP and Dell to prop-up their respective PC markets. Ford, which managed to avoid bankruptcy and bail-out money didn't need to help GM. The founders of Burger King and McDonalds were good friends, but certainly didn't do each other any favors.

I don't see state governments playing nice with each other, either.

What is a successful team? Toronto hasn't seen the post season since Roenick's OT goal in 2004 -- back when we though Robert Esche was our goalie of the future. Or was it Sean Burke? Yet they sell-out.

Phoenix, as a city, is roughly the same population as Philadelphia. Could they charge Philly prices? No. Would icing a competitive team entice and ignite a fan base there? They averaged 12,000 a game and closed out the year leading the division the eventual Stanley Cup Champion came from.

Nashville, a team that lost one star free agent came close to getting poached through a collectively-bargained maneuver that many saw as unfair and "not nice." Their ownership stepped up, and let's see how their fans respond -- and I don't mean simply attendance at games.

The other leagues indeed have some form of revenue sharing. The other leagues are also much-more in the forefront of consumer minds, at least in the US. I think the NHL has gotten a little bit better at marketing the individual, but for a sport that espouses such a team effort, it really seems forced. Then of course there was that whole Stan Lee tie-in...

Will throwing money at other teams via revenue sharing really help them in the long run? Will it shore-up Phoenix and grow that franchise? How are there two teams in the continent's largest media market that have narrowly avoided bankruptcy? Even with on-ice success?

I think the cap did help the league overall the last 7 years. Clearly there were some oversights that various cunning GMs came up with... I think some of the proposed changes are silly... such as not allowing differing values of cap hits to stop front-loading or rear-loading contracts. To me it would make more sense to just let the cap hit per year change. If a player and a team wants a decade long deal, so be it... but there is no reason their 2022 cap hit should equal their 2012 cap hit. There is still roster- and contract-limits, after all...

I don't think I need to be a fan of a bankrupt or failing team to understand what revenue sharing can provide. My intent is not to be selfish... it is to ask a serious question... where is the fan base to support some of these franchises? Again, this does not need to be represented solely in attendance figures -- TV share, Merchandise, or even the mind-share to watch an event at a sports bar in a city without causing an uproar because one of 30 TVs isn't showing football...

[idahophilly]

If you really want to think about it here is my off the cuff analogy:

I own a big company that runs 3 big factories producing widgits and making lots of money. Then the employees want me to open a 4th plant to provide jobs for more employment jobs in Zimbawee that makes no money. So my other three factories have to subsidize the 4th and then ALL the employees ask for a pay raise or else... Well, how , as the owner, would you feel about that?