Quote:
Originally Posted by kermitology
Using your numbers above, with $5B in HRR, $300MM in revenue sharing and a cap floor of $70MM, you're still not going to see much money getting shared among the teams in need. Especially as that cap floor rises, more and more teams will need to tap into revenue sharing. If some teams are only deriving gate driven revenue on (let's say) < 8000 fans, and that list is going to keep growing, those teams are not going to be sustainable in the slightest.
|
That's counter-intuitive. More and more teams can not be losing money if revenue is increasing by 2B. Sure, Toronto, Montreal, and New York will be generating a large amount of that but the only way for revenue to increase as drastically as it's projected to be by the growth of the NHL. Things like the new TV deals, more sponsorships and merchandising will be just as responsible. And when the new Crosby, Toews, Phaneuf and Nash Stadium Series Jerseys go on sale the Predators are getting just as much from the ones sold on NHL.com and in Sportchek as the Penguins, Leafs, Rangers and Hawks.
What's really being underestimated here is the revenue split between the players and owners. Now that the NHL teams are getting 50% of revenue instead of that 43-46% and we're dealing with numbers like 5B, that's a difference of upwards of 350M a year in the owners' favour. A higher cap floor and ceiling is second fiddle to that wonderful news to the NHL owners.
There's certainly teams like pre-new owners Phoenix that were clearly not sustainable and if they don't have a turn around they still wont be. But there's enough check and balances set up and enough business savvy owners in the league that they wouldn't have just negotiated a new CBA that is detrimental to them if the NHL is making too much money.