http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/h ... le5103058/
no name wrote: tfrizz wrote: BurghersAndDogsSports wrote: MRandall25 wrote:
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:I could be wrong but they are pushing rev sharing because the league as an entity was profitable, so they feel the rich teams should just trickle down and cover the losses of everyone else. Its just not going to happen that way. And its not healthy long term.
So is it healthier, in your opinion, for teams to continue to lose money, or for the richer teams to help out a little?
Oh dont get me wrong, I have no problem with rev sharing/increased rev sharing (I dont know the exact numbers or anything). My only point is that increased revenue if it works would solve very little, especially in the long run. The players cut needs to come down to 50 and the rich teams can kick more in.
But it seemed to me Fehr was trying to push this idea that the revenue sharing was the real issue. Its not.
Writing this from my phone, so I'm not in position to find the source, but I do believe the NHLPA suggested that the entire increase in revenue sharing would be covered by the additional 7% of HRR the owners would be getting.
I am not sure how the money works out but that extra 7% is alot of money in the owners pockets, that should defienly help each team alot to minimize their losses during the season, i would even project it would make at least half the league to either break even or make a small profit. The other half of the league would lose a little money, not enought that they couldn't cover the loses. and there would still be 5+ teams in fininacial distress. That is where the revenue sharing comes in and helps them minimize their loses. Until they can strenghten thier fan base and rebuild their team. Just concider the cap drops 10 milion, so if every team has an extra 10 million in their pocket that would help out alot. and the worest off teams can spend 10 less million on players it going to help in how much they lose.
Throw revenue sharing on top of that and you lower how much the distressed teams lose and they are no longer looking to relocate since they are bleeding money.
Mirtle does a pretty good job of explaining it. Under the old CBA, $150-million was put into the revenue sharing pot and was given to teams that met the criteria. The NHLPA asked them to increase it to as much as $260-million, citing that the 7% increase in their share of HRR (~$230-million based on last season's $3.3-billion in revenue)
would sufficiently cover the increase.
The problem is, even with the additional money from HRR there are still only a handful of teams that will earn any significant amount of money. So you're going to have the top-top teams (Toronto, Montreal, NY Rangers, etc) putting in large chunks of money because the 5-10 range is going to be full of teams barely reaching the $10-million mark. In other words, the 5-10th ranked earners' contributions are going to be negligible because any meaningful contribution is going to completely wipe out their profits.
Obviously, the biggest problem in the NHL there just are't enough teams turning a profit - and even fewer turning a significant profit. Even with the additional 7% of HRR, the teams that'll benefit from that the most are the biggest money earners who stand to increase earnings by ~$15-million while the teams trying to get by will increase by ~$5-million and the teams bleeding
money (ie: Phoenix, NY Islanders) will only increase by ~$2-million.* The increases in revenue are by my calculations based off the 2010-11 figures provided by Forbes.