summer hockey?

[broken27]

Jeff, the only revenues that are shared in the NHL is the national TV money.

Under Revenue Sharing, the NHL counter-proposal states:
"Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range."

Translation: If a team's revenues are so low that they can't make their payroll, the other teams will pitch in to make up the difference so they don't go bankrupt.

Not exactly one for all and all for one, is it?

Terry, the NHL currently has a support program in place for the smaller Canadian teams (Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal) that is a loose revenue-sharing mechanism. Basically, in order to qualify, the teams have to meet certain ticket sales targets, must maintain a payroll lower than 'x', and meet a couple of other conditions. Other than this, TV revenues, some merchandising, and of course radio revenues are split among teams.

As for your translation to the very ambiguous passage from that NHL proposal, isn't that what "one for all and all for one" means? Helping each other out in crisis situations? Besides which, that's a pretty cynical interpretation of what Bettman is proposing. In reality, he's not talking about payroll shortfalls or potential bankruptcies. He's saying that under the new system (cap), revenue sharing would even the playing field so that all clubs would be viable in an operational sense. Some teams currently can't afford to spend money, but it's not because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. It's because they have a budget, set out by the owners, which is unbreachable. If EVERY team in the league started with the same amount of money each season (in terms of their spending capacity), then all teams would have an equal shot at winning the Cup. That is what the league wants, in order to promote the sport.

Anyways, I hope it's clear that I am not arguing AGAINST you Terry. Hard to be clear about that on a forum. I'm just engaging in some dialogue because that's about as much hockey excitement that I'm going to get from the NHL this year.... :cryin

Dan

PS - I'll try to track down the item in the NHL's offer that we've been discussing that I believe lends credence to Bettman's little plan. There's so many versions (most are toned down to save the reader the trouble of navigating 250 pages of legalese...).

[el tigre]

Terry, the NHL currently has a support program in place for the smaller Canadian teams (Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal) that is a loose revenue-sharing mechanism.

Yes, I know. It was set up to compensate for the currency differences because Canadian teams are still required to pay player salaries in US Funds. Its a small revenue-sharing program set up for a very specific purpose.

He's saying that under the new system (cap), revenue sharing would even the playing field so that all clubs would be viable in an operational sense. Some teams currently can't afford to spend money, but it's not because they are on the verge of bankruptcy. It's because they have a budget, set out by the owners, which is unbreachable. If EVERY team in the league started with the same amount of money each season (in terms of their spending capacity), then all teams would have an equal shot at winning the Cup. That is what the league wants, in order to promote the sport.

TRUE revenue sharing only exists in the NFL, where virtually ALL revenues are shared (even gate receipts) and ALL teams are both contributors and recipients, without any conditions to be met. You can't get better parity and a more level playing field than that. Bettman's proposal doesn't even come close.

What the NHL is proposing is that IF a team can prove to the league that it is too poor to afford even the minimum payroll level, THEN the other teams will pitch in. Yes, it will promote parity in terms of the competitiveness of the teams. But you will still have very rich teams and very poor teams - its just that the rich teams won't be winning all the Stanley Cups. Instead, they'll be getting even richer than they are now, because all the money they used to spend on obscene payroll levels will now be pure profit! The poor teams do not get substantially richer because they never had obscene payroll levels in the first place - what they get is inflation-protection from their crazy "partners". If you put aside the "competitiveness" considerations for a moment and simply follow the money, you'll see that the players lose a ton of it and the big-market rich teams get it all. That is what "revenue sharing" a la Gary Bettman really boils down to.

The luxury tax method works differently. With a luxury tax, money is transferred from rich teams to poor teams whenever a rich team overspends. They are not prohibited from over-spending, but a luxury tax makes it more expensive. How well it works at keeping salaries in line wil depend totally on how punitive the tax is. If it is a slap on the wrist (MLB), it doesn't work. If it has real teeth, it can be an effective deterrent. Problem is, the rich teams don't like it. They would rather have money coming from the players (surprise, surprise).

Anyways, I hope it's clear that I am not arguing AGAINST you Terry. Hard to be clear about that on a forum. I'm just engaging in some dialogue because that's about as much hockey excitement that I'm going to get from the NHL this year.... :cryin

No problem, understood. This is a friendly debate.

PS - I'll try to track down the item in the NHL's offer that we've been discussing that I believe lends credence to Bettman's little plan. There's so many versions (most are toned down to save the reader the trouble of navigating 250 pages of legalese...).

Here's the latest proposal in detail: http://nhlcbanews.com/news/nhlresponse121404.html

Don't worry, I'm fluently bilingual in both English and Legalese (I took contract law and labour relations law in university many years ago). Its boring as hell, but I understand most of it.

[broken27]

The luxury tax method works differently. With a luxury tax, money is transferred from rich teams to poor teams whenever a rich team overspends. They are not prohibited from over-spending, but a luxury tax makes it more expensive. How well it works at keeping salaries in line wil depend totally on how punitive the tax is. If it is a slap on the wrist (MLB), it doesn't work. If it has real teeth, it can be an effective deterrent. Problem is, the rich teams don't like it. They would rather have money coming from the players (surprise, surprise).

Well, I differ in my interpretation of how the revenue sharing portion of the league's proposal would work, but that's fine.

What I don't like about the luxury tax system as outlined nicely above, is that it is still very inflationary where salaries are concerned. Someone mentioned the Yankees earlier on as a great example of what would happen. But in the NHL, the Rangers, Avs, Leafs, Wings and other very rich teams will still be able to offer up $10-million contracts to star free agents, luring them away from small market teams like Edmonton. Sure, Edmonton would get some small chunk of cash to compensate for the loss, but it's not a star player. This makes it hard to keep guys in one organization for their whole careers, and sets the bar higher for the next round of contract negotiations.

A combination of cap and tax would likely work best. I'm not sure the rollbacks can happen at the same time.

Dan