But that's precisely why the NHL doesn't share as much money.

For the NFL, the $ through national TV contracts is what drives the revenue sharing. Which makes sense, because it's the collective that "earns" that money.

The NHL shares their TV revenues - it's just that it isn't nearly as much as the NFL.
- Atomic Wedgie

Huh??? The NFL tv contract money is distributed equally to all teams. Just like the NHL/NBC $ will be ditributed to all teams. Revenue sharing is designed to distribute the money that is not equally shared (ala gate receipts, mdse, and local tv contract/radio deals).

If there is no season...the players will end up giving a lot more than they think via escrow, 50something % of lower revenues will mean higher escrow. Fehr will cost them a full season of salary and a higher escrow % for the next few seasons.
- Symba007

I hate to keep posting this, but:

Asked...if the 2004-05 lockout was worth it to him as a player, (former NHLer Jeff) O’Neill answered definitively.

“No,” O’Neill said. “I lost $3.5 million. I don’t see how that’s worth it. I’ll never get that money back.”

The hard-core unionists will pooh-pooh O’Neill’s players-can’t-win ethic. Convincing someone that he’s wrong about the cold, hard math, on the other hand, is a taller order.

Huh??? The NFL tv contract money is distributed equally to all teams. Just like the NHL/NBC $ will be ditributed to all teams. Revenue sharing is designed to distribute the money that is not equally shared (ala gate receipts, mdse, and local tv contract/radio deals).
- uf1910

NHL shares merchandise $.

NFL owners can afford to be more generous with revenue sharing - because they are already in the black before they sell the first ticket.

NHL teams can't afford that luxury.

As a fan, I don't like that the Leafs get 2 games against some teams I actually want to see them play.

The more I think about it, the more I would like to see some teams fold...

NJY - This one would hurt because there is a bit of history to a Leafs/Devils rivalry

NYI, Florida, Phoenix(!), Dallas, Tampa ... couldn't care less (despite the animosity between NYI and Toronto)

Huh??? The NFL tv contract money is distributed equally to all teams. Just like the NHL/NBC $ will be ditributed to all teams. Revenue sharing is designed to distribute the money that is not equally shared (ala gate receipts, mdse, and local tv contract/radio deals).
- uf1910

Yes, but what you are missing is that there is motivation for the NFL owners to keep the weaker teams afloat... so that they keep that big national TV deal.

The NHL TV deal is insignificant compared to their gate receipts. Those gate receipts would not decrease for the money-making teams if teams like Columbus, Phoenix, NYI et al were moved elsewhere.

So... there is zero motivation for the richer owners to want to give more in revenue sharing. They are perfectly justified in their stance on this issue.

I hate to keep posting this, but:

Asked...if the 2004-05 lockout was worth it to him as a player, (former NHLer Jeff) O’Neill answered definitively.

“No,” O’Neill said. “I lost $3.5 million. I don’t see how that’s worth it. I’ll never get that money back.”

The hard-core unionists will pooh-pooh O’Neill’s players-can’t-win ethic. Convincing someone that he’s wrong about the cold, hard math, on the other hand, is a taller order.
- Atomic Wedgie

You have to keep posting it because there are people who just don't get it.

If I am the Leafs, habs, NYR and the few others who give money into the revenue sharing, before I agree to increase my %, I want every team that usually loses money every year to go through a review and see if we can find them a new place to play where they could be profitable.

Be careful what you wish for.
- Symba007

I don't think Vinik invested $45M of his own money into forum improvements b/c the Bolts aren't a healthy franchise. Do you think Yzerman would have left Detroit to go to an unhealthy organization? Are the Bolts on the same playing field in terms of near-term financial health as others, surely the answer is no. But are the Bolts way ahead of where they were pre-Vinik when we had terrible owner after owner. That answer is a resounding yes. There are a few markets that have big time issues but the Bolts are not one of those.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that there weren't basket case franchises prior to 2005.
- Atomic Wedgie

But at least they had the option of setting their own payroll and not tied through a cap and floor system to the reveneues generated by leafs, Habs, etc. The Cap and floor has not helped these teams -- I think it has made things worse -- and the only answer will be to try to carve money bnack from players at the end of every CBA.

NHL shares merchandise $.

NFL owners can afford to be more generous with revenue sharing - because they are already in the black before they sell the first ticket.

NHL teams can't afford that luxury.
- Atomic Wedgie

Not only that, but their BIG national deal depends on national interest in the game and therefore it behooves ownership to keep weaker teams afloat.

The NHL's "national" TV deal is worth peanuts in their grand scheme of things.

This is also the whole reason why Bettman tries like hell to keep the weak sisters in the league. He is hoping for the day that there is significant enough "national" interest in NHL hockey that they too can get a big fat juicy national TV contract.

It won't happen. Ever.

I don't think Vinik invested $45M of his own money into forum improvements b/c the Bolts aren't a healthy franchise. Do you think Yzerman would have left Detroit to go to an unhealthy organization? Are the Bolts on the same playing field in terms of near-term financial health as others, surely the answer is no. But are the Bolts way ahead of where they were pre-Vinik when we had terrible owner after owner. That answer is a resounding yes. There are a few markets that have big time issues but the Bolts are not one of those.
- uf1910

Yet TBL lose money every year and can't cover their cost which means they are one of the team that needs revenue sharing to help. If they were losing 20+M per year before and not it's 10M.....they are still hurting.

Look at that list.....operating income....Tampa was 3rd worse in the league

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/

NHL shares merchandise $.

NFL owners can afford to be more generous with revenue sharing - because they are already in the black before they sell the first ticket.

NHL teams can't afford that luxury.
- Atomic Wedgie

Which is EXACTLY what my point was. If the NHL is serious about the markets they are currently in (and what in their actions would suggest otherwise?), then again the NHL has a GREATER need for revenue sharing to help out the failing markets. Again, revenue sharing is designed to distribute wealth from the big markets to the smaller markets that can't generate enough revenue. So how again does that not apply to the NHL??

It didn't fail miserably.

It brought in a salary cap.

It brought cost certainty to all teams.

It allowed for an incredible growth in revenues.

From a labour relations point, the salary cap is absolutely huge.

Now that the CBA has expired, a new one has to be created, that addresses the new challenges facing the league.

That's kinda how the system was supposed to work.
- Atomic Wedgie

Thank you.

What people are overlooking is the fact that the owners and GB might have planned this CBA trajectory all along.

Maybe, just maybe, they planned first to get the CBA, conceding the percentage required to do so, knowing next time (now) they would address the percentages.

I don't think Vinik invested $45M of his own money into forum improvements b/c the Bolts aren't a healthy franchise. Do you think Yzerman would have left Detroit to go to an unhealthy organization? Are the Bolts on the same playing field in terms of near-term financial health as others, surely the answer is no. But are the Bolts way ahead of where they were pre-Vinik when we had terrible owner after owner. That answer is a resounding yes. There are a few markets that have big time issues but the Bolts are not one of those.
- uf1910

I don't think Tampa is one of the teams in the most dire straits. While I couldn't care less if they fold, they have a face of the franchise young player and a relatively recent cup win. They get pretty decent local support.

I don't think Vinik invested $45M of his own money into forum improvements b/c the Bolts aren't a healthy franchise. Do you think Yzerman would have left Detroit to go to an unhealthy organization? Are the Bolts on the same playing field in terms of near-term financial health as others, surely the answer is no. But are the Bolts way ahead of where they were pre-Vinik when we had terrible owner after owner. That answer is a resounding yes. There are a few markets that have big time issues but the Bolts are not one of those.
- uf1910

Well, take it for what it is worth, but according to Forbes, the Bolts lost $8.5 million last year - that's third worst in the NHL.

Personally, I loved the game I watched there. I hope they figure it out.

You have to keep posting it because there are people who just don't get it.
- Aetherial

I like being able to just read and not take the time to post. Atomic Wedgie and Aetherial are conveying my thoughts very nicely.

Which is EXACTLY what my point was. If the NHL is serious about the markets they are currently in (and what in their actions would suggest otherwise?), then again the NHL has a GREATER need for revenue sharing to help out the failing markets. Again, revenue sharing is designed to distribute wealth from the big markets to the smaller markets that can't generate enough revenue. So how again does that not apply to the NHL??
- uf1910

No financial incentive (national TV contract) at stake for the wealthy owners = no reason to increase revenue sharing.

Well, take it for what it is worth, but according to Forbes, the Bolts lost $8.5 million last year - that's third worst in the NHL.

Personally, I loved the game I watched there. I hope they figure it out.
- Atomic Wedgie

Wow, little surprised to hear that actually.

I also enjoyed seeing games there when I have visited my family, but there are teams I would rather see come to Toronto.

But at least they had the option of setting their own payroll and not tied through a cap and floor system to the reveneues generated by leafs, Habs, etc. The Cap and floor has not helped these teams -- I think it has made things worse -- and the only answer will be to try to carve money bnack from players at the end of every CBA.
- Canada Cup

I would disagree.

Under the old system, no way a team like Phoenix makes the playoffs so many years in a row.

The only team under the last CBA to not make the playoffs through the life of said CBA was the Leafs - the league's most profitable team.

With the exception of two teams, no team lost more than $8.5 million last year.

I'll bet that couldn't be said about teams prior to 2005 (in real dollars).

Yet TBL lose money every year and can't cover their cost which means they are one of the team that needs revenue sharing to help. If they were losing 20+M per year before and not it's 10M.....they are still hurting.
- Symba007

Yet again the Bolts are a different organization than they were 3 years ago. It takes time to build up what long time franchises have had generations to do. Given the mis-management and poor ownership throughout our short history it's a testament that we are as healthy as we are compared to other organizations with similar life-spans to ours. And whether you people in the white north want to believe it or not, the Bolts aren't nearly in the same financial situation as the "failing" franchises around the league.

Thank you.

What people are overlooking is the fact that the owners and GB might have planned this CBA trajectory all along.

Maybe, just maybe, they planned first to get the CBA, conceding the percentage required to do so, knowing next time (now) they would address the percentages.
- dawgzhouse

Totally. The salary cap was the big concession the first time. This time around, they improve the percentage maybe. Some of the posters here have this ridiculous notion that the players would have just given them anything. They “broke” them, so, if they wanted, they could have chosen to make salaries 5% of revenue, right??? The CBA is an evolving agreement, that has to adapt to business conditions. They got an agreement that worked quite well for them at the time. Now, they’re negotiating for a new one. That may improve the % of revenue for the owners, or maybe there is a more fundamental change, I don’t know.

Wow, little surprised to hear that actually.

I also enjoyed seeing games there when I have visited my family, but there are teams I would rather see come to Toronto.
- Aetherial

Clarification: I'm posting Forbes' educated guesses for the 2010-11 season.

Not only that, but their BIG national deal depends on national interest in the game and therefore it behooves ownership to keep weaker teams afloat.

The NHL's "national" TV deal is worth peanuts in their grand scheme of things.

This is also the whole reason why Bettman tries like hell to keep the weak sisters in the league. He is hoping for the day that there is significant enough "national" interest in NHL hockey that they too can get a big fat juicy national TV contract.

It won't happen. Ever.
- Aetherial

Keeping the weak sisters in the league also helped to keep the Revenue down before going into this CBA.

After the New CBA is agreed upon, I fully expect the Yotes to be moved.

I’m not sure how you figure there are more problems now than there were before.
- prock

After period of unprecedented revenue growth:

* More teams losing money than pre CBA (even after relocating Thrashers)
* Gap betwen money making and money losing teams wider
* Another work stoppage because the only solution left is to lower salaries to the point where the Coyotes can keep up with the increase in the Cap caused by revenue growth generated by teams that they can never keep up with

Yet again the Bolts are a different organization than they were 3 years ago. It takes time to build up what long time franchises have had generations to do. Given the mis-management and poor ownership throughout our short history it's a testament that we are as healthy as we are compared to other organizations with similar life-spans to ours. And whether you people in the white north want to believe it or not, the Bolts aren't nearly in the same financial situation as the "failing" franchises around the league.
- uf1910

Throughout?

You won an effing Stanley Cup.

Just sayin'...

Thank you.

What people are overlooking is the fact that the owners and GB might have planned this CBA trajectory all along.

Maybe, just maybe, they planned first to get the CBA, conceding the percentage required to do so, knowing next time (now) they would address the percentages.
- dawgzhouse

I don't know if the plan was that specific, but I agree with you 100%.

During the last CBA, the goal was to get a cap in place.

I 100% agree with you that once they got that, they always intended to go back and address percentages later.

Then, the NBA and NFL has to address their own percentages, and they ended up being significantly lower than what the NHLPA currently makes.

Then, the players, who are still "stinging" (not really sure why) from the last lockout get a leader who has talked them into "fighting the good fight" and don't negotiate against yourselves by giving anything back. (contrary to some people's belief the players are NOT actually giving anything back with their offers to date)

Add this all up... and you have a perfect storm that is probably the only way that even these morons can screw up and p*ss away millions, and maybe (hopefully) billions.