Jump to content


NHL CBA negotiations- agreement reached

CBA NHL-NHLPA

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2438 replies to this topic

#41 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 17 May 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 17 May 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:


Because the whole pie belongs to the owners. Without the TV contracts and Stadium leases, there is no pie. 7% of $3B is $210M per year, divided by 700 players is an average pay cut of $300k. I imagine something like a prorated system of cuts based on a 12% rollback so league min drops to like $485k and Brad Richard's goes from $12M to $10.5M. Best the players can hope for, IMO, is 52%.

Let me quote Fehr, " :w00t:  :w00t: "

#42 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, NY/Apex, NC

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:15 PM

I've never really understood the thought that the players deserve more than 50% of the revenue.  I'm sure I'm completely naive on this one, but why do they get so much?  The owners get to keep less than half of the money, and then have to pay all of their operating costs out of that remaining chunk of the money.  Meanwhile the players get more than half of the money and then don't have anywhere near the number of expenses to pay out.  It doesn't sound right.  Someone please expand on my overly simplistic view of this.

#43 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 17 May 2012 - 05:45 PM

View Postshrader, on 17 May 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

I've never really understood the thought that the players deserve more than 50% of the revenue.  I'm sure I'm completely naive on this one, but why do they get so much?  The owners get to keep less than half of the money, and then have to pay all of their operating costs out of that remaining chunk of the money.  Meanwhile the players get more than half of the money and then don't have anywhere near the number of expenses to pay out.  It doesn't sound right.  Someone please expand on my overly simplistic view of this.

HRR is net of direct costs and expenses.

#44 tom webster

tom webster

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,004 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:04 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 17 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

HRR is net of direct costs and expenses.

View Postshrader, on 17 May 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

I've never really understood the thought that the players deserve more than 50% of the revenue.  I'm sure I'm completely naive on this one, but why do they get so much?  The owners get to keep less than half of the money, and then have to pay all of their operating costs out of that remaining chunk of the money.  Meanwhile the players get more than half of the money and then don't have anywhere near the number of expenses to pay out.  It doesn't sound right.  Someone please expand on my overly simplistic view of this.

My simplistic answer, players are both the employees and the resouces used to make the product. Most business would kill for the percentage of the gross that owners of professional sports teams get. That being said, they are assuming all the risk.

#45 RazielSabre

RazielSabre

    Kain refused the sacrifice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent, England

Posted 18 May 2012 - 03:11 AM

View PostSwampD, on 17 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

When I read this post, all I can think of is, "I know you are but what am I?"
:wallbash:
Not sure what your point is, yer sure the last line was a little immature and missing a :P but you've got to have some fun. I meant the rest though.

#46 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:48 AM

View Postspndnchz, on 17 May 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

HRR is net of direct costs and expenses.

This is true, but the way you have stated it here could be misleading. The direct costs and expenses are very exclusive, for instance, the scouting department, FO, Coaches, Transportation, equipment, trainers, doctors, etc. are not netted from HHR. So all of that expense comes out of the owner's share. And it is 10s of millions of dollars.

View Posttom webster, on 17 May 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

My simplistic answer, players are both the employees and the resouces used to make the product. Most business would kill for the percentage of the gross that owners of professional sports teams get. That being said, they are assuming all the risk.

An easy comparison would be a Movie, where the Actors are both empoyees and the resources. Actors typically end up with about 10-20% of revenue depending on the movie. Occasionally it may go up as high as 30% for a movie built around a key star. But that would be rare.

They players cannot win this, IMO. Fans are not loyal to players, they are loyal to Logos, and the Owners are the Logos.

#47 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 18 May 2012 - 10:48 AM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 18 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

This is true, but the way you have stated it here could be misleading. The direct costs and expenses are very exclusive, for instance, the scouting department, FO, Coaches, Transportation, equipment, trainers, doctors, etc. are not netted from HHR. So all of that expense comes out of the owner's share. And it is 10s of millions of dollars.



An easy comparison would be a Movie, where the Actors are both empoyees and the resources. Actors typically end up with about 10-20% of revenue depending on the movie. Occasionally it may go up as high as 30% for a movie built around a key star. But that would be rare.

They players cannot win this, IMO. Fans are not loyal to players, they are loyal to Logos, and the Owners are the Logos.

Where did you hear that?  Coaches contribute to the revenue generation of a team so they are a direct cost.  The same way Rj's salary is a direct cost.

#48 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:06 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 18 May 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Where did you hear that?  Coaches contribute to the revenue generation of a team so they are a direct cost.  The same way Rj's salary is a direct cost.

That is not my understanding. Per CBA language if the majority of the work a person does does not directly generate revenue, that person's salary cannot be counted toward direct costs. They are talking more about sales people and the costs associated with running the NHL.com Shop. Coaching a practice or reviewing game tape don't generate revenue, so a coach's salary is not direct cost. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

#49 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:10 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 18 May 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

That is not my understanding. Per CBA language if the majority of the work a person does does not directly generate revenue, that person's salary cannot be counted toward direct costs. They are talking more about sales people and the costs associated with running the NHL.com Shop. Coaching a practice or reviewing game tape don't generate revenue, so a coach's salary is not direct cost. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Ruff doesn't help the team win so he doesn't help generate revenue.  Got it.

#50 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 18 May 2012 - 01:44 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 18 May 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Ruff doesn't help the team win so he doesn't help generate revenue.  Got it.

:w00t:

#51 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 18 May 2012 - 04:17 PM

Just talked to an agent and coaches pay is not deductible as a cost. Although RJ's is.

#52 Fire Lindy Ruff NOW

Fire Lindy Ruff NOW

    lindy ruff should have been fired 1,000 years ago.

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo, NY

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:06 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 18 May 2012 - 04:17 PM, said:

Just talked to an agent and coaches pay is not deductible as a cost. Although RJ's is.
what agent? howd you talk to an agent?

#53 tom webster

tom webster

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,004 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:52 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 18 May 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

This is true, but the way you have stated it here could be misleading. The direct costs and expenses are very exclusive, for instance, the scouting department, FO, Coaches, Transportation, equipment, trainers, doctors, etc. are not netted from HHR. So all of that expense comes out of the owner's share. And it is 10s of millions of dollars.



An easy comparison would be a Movie, where the Actors are both empoyees and the resources. Actors typically end up with about 10-20% of revenue depending on the movie. Occasionally it may go up as high as 30% for a movie built around a key star. But that would be rare.

They players cannot win this, IMO. Fans are not loyal to players, they are loyal to Logos, and the Owners are the Logos.

I would be willing to bet that sports owners make a higher percentage of the gross then the studios.

#54 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,682 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 18 May 2012 - 08:42 PM

View Post5th line wingnutt, on 17 May 2012 - 01:38 PM, said:

What changes would you like to see?

Two things really, but they're both related.  One, I'd like to see some kind of limit on the ability of teams to just bury contracts in the minors.  I don't necessarily mind it for a year at the end of a contract if a vet's play has completely deteriorated, or to facilitate a trade....but burying a contract for 4 years or something I find a little ridiculous.  I suppose a hard limit could be imposed, but I find that a bit restrictive.  I'd rather try to have a system which encourages player movement.  Right now the big teams that bury contracts have no incentive to bring the players back up for a trade because they'll still be on the hook for half the contract's cap hit if somebody claims the player (they're probably not getting a big trade return, so it's a lot of risk to take on for little reward).  

The smaller markets normally have financial constraints which are lower than the actual cap, whereas big market teams have cap constraints and little else.  So what if there was a system where if a player on re-entry waivers gets claimed, the former team gets out from the cap hit entirely, but has to pick up half of the dollar figure on the contract?  The full cap hit wouldn't be an issue for smaller markets, and they could get a player for half of the cash cost.  The small market gets the player they want, the big market gets out from the cap hit while still being somewhat responsible for their bad contract.  Maybe that's a bad idea, but I would like some type of system which encouraged player movement rather than just stashing guys in the minors long-term because a team gave them a crappy contract.

#55 26CornerBlitz

26CornerBlitz

    1970

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,097 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey

Posted 21 May 2012 - 11:07 AM

http://slapshot.blog...e-n-h-l/?src=tp

#56 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 31 May 2012 - 05:54 PM

Talk of 70.3 million for the salary cap next year. That would make the salary cap floor just over 54 million.

#57 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, NY/Apex, NC

Posted 31 May 2012 - 06:32 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 31 May 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Talk of 70.3 million for the salary cap next year. That would make the salary cap floor just over 54 million.

7 years removed from when the cap was $39 million. Crazy

#58 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 31 May 2012 - 06:47 PM

View Postshrader, on 31 May 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:



7 years removed from when the cap was $39 million. Crazy
It would mean we have close to $12 million in cap space now.

#59 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,953 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 31 May 2012 - 07:42 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 31 May 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Talk of 70.3 million for the salary cap next year. That would make the salary cap floor just over 54 million.


Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

Keeping in mind there's a new CBA coming (hopefully), upper limit of salary cap for next season (technically speaking) is $70.3M.




Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie

In other words, IF the CBA weren't expiring, next season's salary cap based on Hockey Related Revenue would be $70.3M. But CBA is expiring.


#60 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:02 AM

View Postspndnchz, on 31 May 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Talk of 70.3 million for the salary cap next year. That would make the salary cap floor just over 54 million.

Quick Math:

Cap (Player Share Negotiated in new CBA) Sabres Cap Space (Sabres Cap Space Assuming a Roll Back = to Player % reduction)

$70.3M (57%) $11.8M ($11.8M)
$69.0M (56%) $10.6M ($11.6M)
$67.8M (55%) $_9.3M ($11.4M)
$66.6M (54%) $_8.1M ($11.2M)
$65.4M (53%) $_6.9M ($11.0M)
$64.1M (52%) $_5.6M ($10.8M)
$62.9M (51%) $_4.4M ($10.5M)
$61.6M (50%) $_3.2M ($10.4M)

My guess is a drop to 54% player share and maybe a partial existing contract roll back, which would land the cap at $66.6M and leave the Sabres between $8M-$11M in cap space.

#61 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,822 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 10:57 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 10:24 AM, said:

I know this is a bit off-topic, from what i understand the Sabres are still collecting revenue sharing. I don't see how the NHL would allow a team that is heavily front loading contracts to still collect revenue sharing. That doesn't make sense to me.


That is true. Those teams seem to be getting more bang for their bucks as they say.
Without eliminating the front-loaded contract, I don't see how they don't allow it.  How do they get the NHLPA to go along with them preventing only teams that collect revenue sharing from front-loading contracts?  If you have the answer to that, then maybe they could prevent that.

#62 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:08 AM

View PostTaro T, on 11 June 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Without eliminating the front-loaded contract, I don't see how they don't allow it.  How do they get the NHLPA to go along with them preventing only teams that collect revenue sharing from front-loading contracts?  If you have the answer to that, then maybe they could prevent that.
If a team collects revenue sharing, their expenditures (including cash value of contracts) for that season should not be able to exceed their total revenue. If it does they forfeit their right to the revenue sharing. IMO, the Sabres being able to spend well beyond their revenue and still collect revenue sharing goes against the spirit of revenue sharing.

#63 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:10 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

If a team collects revenue sharing, their expenditures (including cash value of contracts) for that season should not be able to exceed their total revenue. If it does they forfeit their right to the revenue sharing. IMO, the Sabres being able to spend well beyond their revenue and still collect revenue sharing goes against the spirit of revenue sharing.

This would put a lower cap on the small market teams than the large, which would go against the spirit of the cap itself.

#64 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:18 AM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 11 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

This would put a lower cap on the small market teams than the large, which would go against the spirit of the cap itself.
There has to be a fair median. Maybe allowing teams to go a certain percentage over total revenue before being disqualified from the revenue sharing plan. Or re-define small and large markets. The Sabres are, at this point, no-longer a small market team.

#65 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,746 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 11 June 2012 - 11:30 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

There has to be a fair median. Maybe allowing teams to go a certain percentage over total revenue before being disqualified from the revenue sharing plan. Or re-define small and large markets. The Sabres are, at this point, no-longer a small market team.

Historically the fight over revenue sharing has been on the other side of the spectrum. Teams receiving share and not spending enough of it.

#66 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, NY/Apex, NC

Posted 11 June 2012 - 12:15 PM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 11 June 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Historically the fight over revenue sharing has been on the other side of the spectrum. Teams receiving share and not spending enough of it.

Which is exactly why the PA would never sign on for anything being discussed here.  These proposals would take money out of the pockets of the players.  They absolutely love having an owner like Pegula in the league who is willing to spend.

If a team wants to take on a loss and spend more than they can bring in, that's their own decision.  That doesn't mean you then in turn take away a very structured system that they all agreed upon.

#67 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 12:38 PM

View Postshrader, on 11 June 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Which is exactly why the PA would never sign on for anything being discussed here.  These proposals would take money out of the pockets of the players.  They absolutely love having an owner like Pegula in the league who is willing to spend.

If a team wants to take on a loss and spend more than they can bring in, that's their own decision.  That doesn't mean you then in turn take away a very structured system that they all agreed upon.
If you are a high revenue team and you see another team that is collecting revenue sharing outspend you it's going to become a problem. I doubt ownership is concerned about what the NHLPA thinks. Sports unions are as popular with fans these days as labor unions are in Wisconsin.

#68 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,682 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 11 June 2012 - 12:49 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

If you are a high revenue team and you see another team that is collecting revenue sharing outspend you it's going to become a problem. I doubt ownership is concerned about what the NHLPA thinks. Sports unions are as popular with fans these days as labor unions are in Wisconsin.

Certain teams having a problem and actually getting changes into the CBA are entirely different beasts.  Owners have to care what the NHLPA thinks, since they have to sign off on any changes in the revenue sharing system.  And what makes you think all of the owners will want to change?  If the players' share of HRR remains the same, then if you restrict the owners' ability to spend beyond a certain point based on revenue, somehow that additional spending will have to get picked up elsewhere in the system.  For instance, maybe it results in a higher cap floor.  Are the small-medium market teams really going to agree to being required to pay out more because of a spat between a few rich teams and a small market team with a free spending owner?  I doubt it.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 11 June 2012 - 12:52 PM.


#69 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,311 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, NY/Apex, NC

Posted 11 June 2012 - 01:46 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

If you are a high revenue team and you see another team that is collecting revenue sharing outspend you it's going to become a problem. I doubt ownership is concerned about what the NHLPA thinks. Sports unions are as popular with fans these days as labor unions are in Wisconsin.

But he's spending his own money and operating at a loss while doing it.  It might be different story if the money the Sabres were spending was based completely on money brought in by the club, but it's not.  And if the owners don't like it, that's too bad.  Every single one of them agreed to this system that is giving Buffalo that check.

#70 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,822 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 02:03 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

If a team collects revenue sharing, their expenditures (including cash value of contracts) for that season should not be able to exceed their total revenue. If it does they forfeit their right to the revenue sharing. IMO, the Sabres being able to spend well beyond their revenue and still collect revenue sharing goes against the spirit of revenue sharing.
So you are fine with giving smaller market teams lower caps to work with than the larger market clubs? :huh:

The whole point of a salary cap and revenue sharing for smaller market teams is to put the league on relatively even footing.  (They will never be 'truly' equal unless the league were to mandate a spending range for front-office / back-office personnel and equipment - which will NEVER happen; but at least their closer to equivalent.)  And that's not QUITE true, the whole point of a salary cap is to save the owners and GM's from themselves AND to have a relatively balanced league from a competitive basis.

And from that basis, the cap and revenue sharing are doing their jobs.  You've got 6 v 8 in the Finals.  Which would imply that there is a lot of parity near the top.

And to step 1 step further back, revenue sharing is what allows teams that are forced to spend to the salary floor to make a profit.  Your proposal as written will by definition give poorer revenue teams even less money to spend on players than the big guys.  Why have a cap & revenue sharing when all it does is give the big guys a chance to swat the little guys' noses with a newspaper if they try to use the revenue sharing?

#71 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 June 2012 - 04:33 PM

View PostTaro T, on 11 June 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

So you are fine with giving smaller market teams lower caps to work with than the larger market clubs? :huh:

The whole point of a salary cap and revenue sharing for smaller market teams is to put the league on relatively even footing.  (They will never be 'truly' equal unless the league were to mandate a spending range for front-office / back-office personnel and equipment - which will NEVER happen; but at least their closer to equivalent.)  And that's not QUITE true, the whole point of a salary cap is to save the owners and GM's from themselves AND to have a relatively balanced league from a competitive basis.

And from that basis, the cap and revenue sharing are doing their jobs.  You've got 6 v 8 in the Finals.  Which would imply that there is a lot of parity near the top.

And to step 1 step further back, revenue sharing is what allows teams that are forced to spend to the salary floor to make a profit.  Your proposal as written will by definition give poorer revenue teams even less money to spend on players than the big guys.  Why have a cap & revenue sharing when all it does is give the big guys a chance to swat the little guys' noses with a newspaper if they try to use the revenue sharing?
Can a team be considered "poorer" if it is able to shell out millions in front loaded contracts? I'm not talking about teams that need assistance to make the salary floor. I'm looking at a situation like with the Sabres. Only 15 teams qualify for revenue sharing, should the Sabres be one of those teams? Is allowing a team in the Sabres position to collect a revenue sharing check really in the spirit of revenue sharing?

There are already guidelines with revenue sharing. Minimal spending requirements and attendance. I don't think having a reasonable maximum expenditures will throw off any competitive balance.

#72 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 11 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Can a team be considered "poorer" if it is able to shell out millions in front loaded contracts? I'm not talking about teams that need assistance to make the salary floor. I'm looking at a situation like with the Sabres. Only 15 teams qualify for revenue sharing, should the Sabres be one of those teams? Is allowing a team in the Sabres position to collect a revenue sharing check really in the spirit of revenue sharing?

There are already guidelines with revenue sharing. Minimal spending requirements and attendance. I don't think having a reasonable maximum expenditures will throw off any competitive balance.

Um.  Sabres missed revenue sharing last year.

#73 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 June 2012 - 06:41 AM

View Postspndnchz, on 11 June 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Um.  Sabres missed revenue sharing last year.
Did they? I thought part of the reason for the ticket price increases was to qualify for revenue sharing?

#74 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:03 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 12 June 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

Did they? I thought part of the reason for the ticket price increases was to qualify for revenue sharing?

They missed in 2011-2012 (based on 2010-11 numbers).  I believe the qualified for revenue sharing next season, 2012-13, based on 11-12 numbers.

#75 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 14 June 2012 - 10:04 AM

View Postspndnchz, on 13 June 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

They missed in 2011-2012 (based on 2010-11 numbers).  I believe the qualified for revenue sharing next season, 2012-13, based on 11-12 numbers.

Giving another thought to this.  Is this the reason the OSP decided to in fact sell the team after saying no the first time around?

#76 thanes16

thanes16

    Third Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,985 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 June 2012 - 11:22 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 11 June 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

Can a team be considered "poorer" if it is able to shell out millions in front loaded contracts? I'm not talking about teams that need assistance to make the salary floor. I'm looking at a situation like with the Sabres. Only 15 teams qualify for revenue sharing, should the Sabres be one of those teams? Is allowing a team in the Sabres position to collect a revenue sharing check really in the spirit of revenue sharing?

There are already guidelines with revenue sharing. Minimal spending requirements and attendance. I don't think having a reasonable maximum expenditures will throw off any competitive balance.

Why put a hold on what an owner can afford? It's not like Pegula made a profit off the Sabres this past season. A significant percentage of the money he has spent has come from his own pocket. The NHL had nothing to do w/ that money. Pegula gained that money elsewhere. Why should he be held back? Why should he be told what he can do w/ his own money? Why should his money be held against him? Pegula is a rarity. He's an owner that wants to win a Cup and is willing to lose his money in the process.

#77 DeLuca1967

DeLuca1967

    #39 - Greatest of All-Time.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 June 2012 - 06:32 AM

View Postthanes16, on 14 June 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Why put a hold on what an owner can afford? It's not like Pegula made a profit off the Sabres this past season. A significant percentage of the money he has spent has come from his own pocket. The NHL had nothing to do w/ that money. Pegula gained that money elsewhere. Why should he be held back? Why should he be told what he can do w/ his own money? Why should his money be held against him? Pegula is a rarity. He's an owner that wants to win a Cup and is willing to lose his money in the process.
The point isn't about preventing Pegula from spending his money. The issue is should he be collecting a welfare check from the league while he is on a spending spree.

#78 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,726 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:39 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 15 June 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

The point isn't about preventing Pegula from spending his money. The issue is should he be collecting a welfare check from the league while he is on a spending spree.

Why shouldn't the Sabres get rewarded for meeting league mandates and having a revenue-growth rate that matches or exceeds that of the league average?  I might argue the 2.5 million people part although I have no problem taking a few million dollars from the likes of NY, LA, Philly, Chicago and Boston.

#79 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:46 AM

View Postspndnchz, on 15 June 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Why shouldn't the Sabres get rewarded for meeting league mandates and having a revenue-growth rate that matches or exceeds that of the league average?  I might argue the 2.5 million people part although I have no problem taking a few million dollars from the likes of NY, LA, Philly, Chicago and Boston.
Yep.

#80 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,953 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 15 June 2012 - 07:54 AM

I think I get what DeLuca is saying and can agree with it.  I am assuming that the spirit of the revenue sharing rule is to balance out the haves and the have nots to some extent.  I believe it is meant to promote parity among the league by giving teams wih lesser financial resources another revenue source to help them be competitive with the Phillys, Detroits, NYR's of the league.  Buffalo with TPegs as owner can't really be considered a have not anymore.  Right?

Now, should the Sabres not try for revenue sharing if they can readily qualify for it?  Of course they should go out and get it.  Take advantage wherever you can.  But really, the rule probably needs modification now that we have a Daddy Warbucks owner.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: CBA, NHL-NHLPA