Revenue Sharing

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Revenue Sharing

    How does revenue sharing affect a player's salary? I don't quite understand why they even have revenue sharing when they are the employees and the NHL the employer, or if they are to have it why do the players deserve as much as the owners? The players are given large contracts from money that belongs to the owners, where does the money they get from league profits go?

     

    Can anyone explain this? I don't understand the concept at all.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Revenue Sharing

    The % of revenue establishes the cap number.  Explaining NHL revenue would be only understandable to a cost accountant.  One conversation the owners had was to include AHL expenses in determining the revenue stream, the AHL teams lose money in other words.  The NHLPA did not agree with that cost accounting measure.  So to the casual fan explaining profit would be a nighmare, cost accountants dream.  That is why I think something else has to come about to make the sides agree with a 50/50% share.  The players should have the right to maintain there current contracts without a roll back, imo.  So something has to be created in the interim.  Good luck in search of your answer to the question of profit.  

    Ie.  Delaware North owns the Bs and the Garden, but the concessions are not part of the Bs accounting as that is another JJ entity in Delaware North.  Smaller franchises are not so fortunate.  

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Revenue Sharing

    Wondering if there isn't some confusion between revenue, and revenue sharing.  As pointed out above, both sides had agreed on a formula to base the salary cap.  It was, and will continue to be...a percentage of revenue.  For all practical purposes, it makes no sense to revisit the "definition", as it just opens up a can of worms, as both sides will have to renegotiate the whole convoluted process.  The definition doesn't matter, as long as it stays consistent.  Makes more sense to either move the current formula up or down a bit, percentage wise to make the necessary deal.

    Revenue sharing is a different term altogether, and really has no relevance to player salaries...in the context of salary cap et al.  I believe revenue sharing, to be the debate as to how/whether the most lucrative franchises share their bounty with the weaker ones.  Although a key element to the PA's position, and all mishmashed into the bigger picture....revenue, and revenue sharing are totally different animals.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Revenue Sharing

    stevegm:  What is revenue sharing?  Between the NHLPA and NHL owners or is it between the "weathier" and "poorer" teams?  

    I believe the term revenue sharing is the former when speaking of the CBA agreement.  The argument is then is dispersal of the %.  Now the NHLPA and NHL have disagreement of how the money is divvied up especially with the "wealthier" and "poorer" teams.  Lastly the definintion is under consideration during the negitiations, every thing is on the table during a negotiations.  I do not get offended if I am corrected.  

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Revenue Sharing

    islamorada:  like you, I think it's between the wealthy and poor.  Really don't know much about how the league currently looks after the have-nots, but it appears since the league is asking the PA for more concessions, the PA wants to throw their indifference to the "little guy", right back at them.  That's the only reason it's on the table.  If the league wasn't looking for a bigger chunk of the pie...there would be no arguments about the subject.

    Realistically, the players, or any industry group for that matter.....have little interest in every moving part.  Their focus is on the solid operation of the overall product.

    The only real kicker is the % of revenue going to salaries.  Once established, this other stuff will evaporate.

    And I don't mind be corrected either.  In fact, I appreciate it.

     

     

Share