[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Franchise fees are revenue, I have no idea what else you would call it. There are loads of examples if you want to research it. (start with the Rev Rec standard 606 and then some public company F/S for franchisors).

The fact that the amounts are not consistent, or occurring annually, does not preclude it from being revenue either. What standard are you using to come up with this?

Obviously tying salaries to a revenue stream that has peaks is complex but far from impossible. Escrow, amortizing fees over a number of years are possible mechanisms. The owners have already agreed to tie player salaries to revenue so that toothpaste is not going back into the tube. Of course the owners don't want to pay any more that they have to, but this is not the same as proceeds from the sale of a team.

I don't have your certainty about what happens with the next round of labor negotiations though.

The definition of Hockey Related Revenues:

The simple definition of "Hockey Related Revenues":

The CBA creates a fixed relationship between the league's revenues and the amount that is available to be paid out to players. Basically, "hockey related revenues" is the money that is generated from revenue streams that are directly or indirectly related to the playing of NHL games, including ticket sales, concession sales, broadcasting agreements, etc. In addition, if player's names and likenesses are used (video games, etc), they will participate in those revenue streams as well.

(bold is my emphasis)

more on it: https://www.davemanuel.com/investor-...ated-revenues/