|
Post by hatrick007 on Dec 15, 2004 17:30:40 GMT -5
nhlcbanews.com/news/comparison.htmlSee the link to compare the two, BOTH include revenue sharing which is good news, however no details on the revenue sharing are stated whatsoever...
|
|
|
Post by dreamcatcher on Dec 16, 2004 8:48:51 GMT -5
Not enough of the revenue sharing is offered by the Govenors. If the Ownership groups were to share 75% of their revenues equally with the players association, this lockout would be close to over.
The point is I believe the NHL is looking to break the union and start over. There really are alot of revenue streams out there, and this beloved game of ours has turned into quite the business. Would you want to give up 3/4's of your revenues? The two sides cannot even start to TRUST each other long enough to have an actual working start point.
|
|
|
Post by Trent Steele on Dec 16, 2004 15:28:40 GMT -5
I mentioned this in another thread, that if the owners expect the players to share the total revenues, that the owners have to share it as well.
This is the only thing that the players have said that makes any sense to me whatsoever, but they go about it the wrong way. Instead of saying that they won't accept a cap whatsoever, why don't they try to get the owners to agree on some sort of revenue sharing plan. For the league to be successful, it needs both a cap, and a good revenue sharing plan.
In the NFL, if someone buys a Miami Dolphin hat, every team in the league gets a portion of that profit.
|
|
|
Post by jamiebez on Dec 20, 2004 15:42:19 GMT -5
In the NFL, if someone buys a Miami Dolphin hat, every team in the league gets a portion of that profit. Who's buying Dolphins hats these days? ;D But seriously folks, merchandising and national TV contracts (CBC, TSN, ESPN and NBC) are the ONLY revenues that are shared between teams right now. Revenue sharing is a very hot topic now, though. It seems that the league's proposal involves sharing playoff revenues only, allowing teams to keep their lucrative regular reason revenue streams (tickets, local TV deals, rink advertising) all to themselves. Some in the media are speculating that this is how Bettman is keeping the big-spending owners in line - since their biggest money-making streams can be kept to themselves. Introduce a $32M hard cap and some of these teams will be making $50, 60, 100M in profit each year! I feel this is the wrong way to go about it - it's like you're punishing playoff teams for being successful. Can you imagine Calgary having to share their playoff revenues with Toronto, because they had a better playoff than the Leafs last year? Ridiculous! This is one aspect the players have right - the way to do it is to tap into the revenue streams that the big-market teams have access to and the small-market ones don't. Gate sharing and sharing of some local TV revenue is a good way to start.
|
|