Reference Information:
http://comcast-spectacor.com/
Corporate Webite for Comcast-Specator, parent company of the Philadelphia Flyers and all Comcast-branded subsidiaries.
Click on ‘Company Brochure’ [PDF File]
Page 4 of the ‘Company Brochure’ Corporate Communication clearly states that:
“Comcast is the majority owner and manager of NBCUniversal… [followed by NBC-Universal programming information]

The brochure also goes on to describe all of Comcast-Spectacor’s fully owned subsidiaries, including comanies which profit from services provided to other NHL teams. [New Era Tickets].

The only company which is a full-owned subsidiary under the Comcast-Spectacor brand is NBC-Universal. In regards to NBC-Universal, while not wholly owned by Comcast-Spectacor, the majority shareholder [over 50%] is Comcast-Spectacor [of which Ed Snider owns 35%. While the presentation of facts may resemble a non-existant conspiracy, the information stated is factually correct, most of which was obtained from corporate communication published by Comcast-Spectacor. I stand by the factual information presented in my comments and there is overwhelming evidence that Ed Snider maintains a deep personal interest in Comcast-Spectacor, NBC and all of their subsidiaries. If he isn't a driving force behind many of the business decisions made by Comcast-Spectacor then he's intentionally putting himself in a position to appear as though he is.

The FCC already ruled on the Comcast's requirements to make their programming available to competing programming providers prior to the blackout of Round 1 playoff games in the Philadelphia area, yet to this day, CSN Philly is not available [even for a fee] to DirecTV / Dish Network Subcribers in the Philadelpia market area.

If you are deducting all of your expenses from revenue then what you are left with is profit (or for some businesses, losses).

Comcast went one step further and purchased the majority share of NBC-Universal, just before the NHL made their tv agreement with NBC [which coincidentally pays out $200 million to the owners, even during a lockout]. Comcast then turned around and BLACKED OUT round 1 flyers playoff games nationally aired on NBC-SC to the rest of the country from philadelphia area households unwilling to subscribe to Comcasts’s cable services [aka DirecTV and Disn Network]. They effectively lowered ratings for these broadcasts by intentionally preventing a large majority of people in one of the team’s home markets from viewing the game. Lower viewership = lower ratings = less advertising revenue, of which the portion paid to the NHL would be counted towards HRR. In having done so the resulting fans wanting to watch Flyers Hockey [including away games] were forced to overpay for Comcast subscriptions [locked into long term over priced contracts], revenue from which DOES NOT count towards HRR.
Forget the 47-57% of ‘HRR’ the NHL and NHLPA are fighting over. The NHLPA should be calling the NHL out on tactics which intentionally lower money counted towards HRR in order to generate non-HRR money for their other financial interests.

The ticketing system used by the Ottawa Senators is a company called ‘New Era Ticketing’. Service fees or flat fees paid out by the Senators [or Senators fans purchasing tickets] aren’t considered HRR. Which would be understandable if New Era Ticketing wasn’t a fully owned subsidiary of [wait for it...] Comcast-Spectacor. How’s that for revenue sharing. Here’s a small market team paying out money associated with hockey games to the owner of a big market team which, when all is said and done won’t be considered part of HRR yet ends up in the pockets of Flyers Owner Comcast.

The deal that Comcast made with NBC to aquire the majority of NBC was supposed to have forced Comcast to offer CSN Philly programming [aka Flyers games] to other television programming providers [aka DirecTV and DISH network] but they STILL REFUSE to do so. Now ALL of the NHL broadcasting in in the hands of Comcast via NBC thanks to a deal the entire league signed with the owner of ONE team.

What part of this article wasn’t clear? Their contracts are almost irrelivant. A 5 million contract is only a 5 million dollar contract if that is how it winds up after the players get their percentage. It could be more, it could be less. If they are as optomistic about the game becoming more popular as they pretend to be, they would expect that to be more than what the contract states. All they decide is what percentage of the 57% each player gets. Of course the owners want it to be less. They have no loss risk, NO business spends 57% of revenue to staff, let alone one aspect of staff.

Can you use those powers go give me next week’s powerball numbers?

(c) Procedures in the Event of a Shortfall. In the event of a Shortfall in a League Year, the entire amount of funds in the Escrow Account shall be released to the Clubs for payment to the Players, in the amount of each Player’s escrow account, net of applicable payroll taxes. In addition, in order to ensure that, in the aggregate, the Players’ Share has been spent on League-wide Player Compensation, each Player shall also receive, pro rata to his actual Player Salary and Bonuses, supplemental payments from each Club, net of applicable payroll taxes.

Also, Elliotte Friedman has a (great, as usual) article this week detailing what HRR is exactly, and how its calculation has allowed teams to deduct non-player costs directly from revenue in order to reduce the share paid to the players since the last lockout.

So even if the players had received exactly 57% of “HRR” every season that transpired under the last CBA, you can make a cogent argument that they never actually received 57% of the revenue their work generated for the league.