Comments on: Players’ union presenting an “alternative view” to owners tomorrow

By: hockeydon10

hockeydon10 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:27:48 +0000

Interesting facts to see before one agrees with the billionaire (or near billionaire) owners crying poor. I’m a little baffled why REPORTERS don’t report this sort of thing. It’s right there in the CBA. I know it would take a little research and work, so maybe that’s too much to ask of hockey reporters today. After all, this took about 5 minutes to find.

* The top ten money-making teams contribute to the pool. The bottom 15 money-making teams are eligible to collect from it.
* The amount of money contributed by the top ten teams is set by a formula that includes a percentage of overall league revenues and some playoff revenues. The exact number isn’t worked out until the season is over and all revenues have been counted.
* For a bottom-15 team to collect a full revenue sharing cheque, it must reach at least 80% capacity in home attendance (last year that meant averaging about 14,000 per game) and show revenue growth that exceeds the league average. Missing either threshold means a cut in the share.
* In 2010, a full share of revenue sharing was about $10 million.
* Teams in markets with more than 2.5 million television households cannot qualify for revenue sharing. By my unofficial estimate, that means the Rangers, Islanders, Devils, Flyers, Blackhawks, Ducks, Sharks, Stars, and Kings are ineligible.

What does this mean? It means every team with an operating loss EXCEPT the Coyotes, Islanders, Ducks, & Sharks had that negative operating income turn into a positive because of the current CBA. This means that really only four teams (give or take each year) lose money.

So, what is really being discussed is the 10 rich owners that pay into the pool want the players to prop up the 15 worst teams.

By: tmoore4075

tmoore4075 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:00:42 +0000

I disagree. The NHL has always had some sort of parity. 2001-2004 were the big spending years of the NHL. The only market you named that really didn’t do much spending was LA. The others spent money but only Detroit won a Cup. Philly got the ECF’s in 04 and that was it for them and NYR oh that’s right never made the playoffs. 2002 the Canes went to the finals. 2003 Ducks/Wild WCF and Ducks going to game 7 in the SCF. And then 2004 the big time markets of TB and Calgary in the SCF’s. If parity was there when Detroit and New York were spending $70mil and others weren’t even close it would still happen with some sort of a luxury tax or revenue sharing.

By: tmoore4075

tmoore4075 — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:54:39 +0000

Everyone sees luxury tax and gets scared. The ideas people are floating is a luxury tax still with a hard cap. Basically the soft cap is high 50′s or 60 and let teams go 8-10mil (whatever the NHL/NHLPA come up with) and tax the teams who spend to the 68mil mark. BUT teams can’t go over $68mil. So you are still capping it but also bringing in taxes to filter down to your small markets. On top of that the floor will be lower which will help teams financially and reduce the need (probably not get rid of but reduce) to overspend on mid-level talent just to get to the floor. Then those teams are breaking the bank just to be finish 13th in the conference. Just cutting percentage down to 46% isn’t the answer. The players aren’t at fault here, the owners got themselves into this mess and want to be saved from themselves. Or I should say the small market owners want to be saved from the big markets that spend the money and the mid-level markets that spend a lot trying to keep up with the big boys. So a modified hard cap/luxury tax system puts the burden more on the owners and makes them accountable for their actions as well as helps keep the failing markets alive that Bettman wants for some reason.

By: slickvegas

slickvegas — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:41:29 +0000

here we go again. millionaires talking to other millionaires about how to split up multi-millions and the fans lose out again. How about both sides take a roll back on salaries and we get a 20% reduction on ticket prices that are through the moon. Ever tried to buy a front row hockey seat in Canada? Yikes.

By: greatminnesotasportsmind

greatminnesotasportsmind — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:29:56 +0000

A luxery tax? What is this, the NBA?

I guess from now on the Stanley Cup engravers only need Detroit, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and NY Rangers engraving stencils. Just like the NBA it will be the same 6 teams that have a chance.

Keep the bleeping hard cap like the NFL.

By: vindicatus

vindicatus — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:24:10 +0000

In other words, this proposal will be so radically different from the owners’ we won’t even call it a counter proposal.

Or, put even more succinctly: hold on to your butts.

By: killerpgh

killerpgh — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:13:26 +0000

Should be very interesting. Do the player come back with a crazy offer like the owners did? Or do they make a sensible offer and spin it as more of an owner vs owner issues? So far everything the NHLPA has done has made them seem like the “better” guy in the talks. The players are willing to continue to play under the current CBA while the continuing the talks. The owners are not. The owners offer a crazy deal and the PA doesn’t laugh. They just ask for information to try an found out how/why the owners came up with those numbers. So far the PA is handling this much better in my eyes. But that could all change with the offer.

By: revansrevenant

revansrevenant — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:11:21 +0000

I want to see enhanced revenue sharing. That is the only solution that doesn’t leave us in this situation six, eight, ten years down the road without folding eight-plus teams. That is not a good thing.