When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

The 36% could be the ticket pricing only, and doesn't include concessions and merchandise which the $1.7M and $1.8M do.

From the reports I’ve read, the $1.7M/game is the number the 36% figure is based on. Which makes sense since I read that ticket revenue is around an average of $1.3M/game and that would fall short of being 36% of revenue.

Seemed like they were referring to regular season games to me, but I honestly don't know.

It’s actually ridiculously challenging to find some of these answers as a lot of sports journalists seem to just throw out these numbers without giving very much context on how they were calculated. Which is too bad because it would probably help paint a much more complet picture.

Simple math with a lot of assumptions suggests they would go from a $770M profit to a $1.1B loss with a 56 game schedule and the players getting 72% of their contracts.

Even simpler math with less assumptions would suggest that a league that has received $1.15B dollars in expansion fees over the last few years ought to be able to stay afloat in spite of that cost.

It’s pretty obvious that the season will go ahead so the owners are clearly capable of absorbing a big hit, I’m not saying it’s the right, wrong or best way to go about this, but it really makes me question why so many opinion pieces were speculating that this would put the league, its teams and/or the season in jeopardy when it’s becoming pretty clear that that is not the case.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

I imagine it would. If the finals are nationally televised there is clearly going to be more games televised in a 7 game series versus a 4 game sweep.



I was just using NBC as an example, it could definitely impact every tv deal but I’m not sure if their tv deals are based on rights for a specific time period/season or on a specific number of games. Considering individual teams don’t know how many games will be nationally or regionally broadcast every season I think it’s unlikely that regional tv deals are based on a specific numbers of games as those numbers would change every season.



Having a playoffs was probably the biggest issue there. It’s not as if they had to play the canceled regular season games.

NBC is the smallest portion of tv money. The Canadian deal, and local TV contracts make up over 80% of the deal. Labor stoppages are always a risk, so I would guess they are all structured around some kind of pro-rated amount by games or months played. I know many American RSNs have been taking a beating both by general cord cutting and not being able to get carriage deals due to them not having games to show. The NHL has to be nervous that the majority of American local deals are in jeopardy of being defaulted on too.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

So your point is that you don't think the number of games available to televise has any impact on what the broadcast revenues will be? Your example that i bolded doesn't seem remotely similar to the situation of a significantly shortened season. Sure seems likely the regional TV deals would specify the number of games within a reasonable window.

Common sense tells me the networks and other rights holders would have negotiated the amount of content they were to receive but interested if you have some evidence to the contrary.

Did the league receive less or have to pay back money already received for the cancelled games last season? Personally I haven’t seen that reported anywhere. I would assume the league would have made this a focal point of their argument to increase salary deferral/escrow if it were the case.

While I’m sure there are a number of parameters outlined in any broadcasting rights contract I don’t think a hard number of games would be included without some sort of clause to protect the league in the event they had to reduce the number of games in a season as a result in an event like this pandemic or a new CBA with a shortened/lengthened regular season since those deals aren’t always negotiated at the same time.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Did the league receive less or have to pay back money already received for the cancelled games last season? Personally I haven’t seen that reported anywhere. I would assume the league would have made this a focal point of their argument to increase salary deferral/escrow if it were the case.

While I’m sure there are a number of parameters outlined in any broadcasting rights contract I don’t think a hard number of games would be included without some sort of clause to protect the league in the event they had to reduce the number of games in a season as a result in an event like this pandemic or a new CBA with a shortened/lengthened regular season since those deals aren’t always negotiated at the same time.

Ironically, the TV deals may be more likely to protect the broadcasters from having to show more games. Most all of the local and national American regular season games cost more to produce than they bring in ad revenue.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

From the reports I’ve read, the $1.7M/game is the number the 36% figure is based on. Which makes sense since I read that ticket revenue is around an average of $1.3M/game and that would fall short of being 36% of revenue.



It’s actually ridiculously challenging to find some of these answers as a lot of sports journalists seem to just throw out these numbers without giving very much context on how they were calculated. Which is too bad because it would probably help paint a much more complet picture.



Even simpler math with less assumptions would suggest that a league that has received $1.15B dollars in expansion fees over the last few years ought to be able to stay afloat in spite of that cost.

It’s pretty obvious that the season will go ahead so the owners are clearly capable of absorbing a big hit, I’m not saying it’s the right, wrong or best way to go about this, but it really makes me question why so many opinion pieces were speculating that this would put the league, its teams and/or the season in jeopardy when it’s becoming pretty clear that that is not the case.

How do you get to 36% then.

$1.75M all in as you agreed x 45 games (includes playoffs) x 31 teams is $2.44B

If that's 36% then league revenue is $6.8B not $5B.

Seems to me the 36% is incorrect.

And expansion aside, the players getting 72% and no gate revenue would be a $1.1B loss. The assumptions aren't all that extreme in arriving there.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Kylington, if he doesn't sign.

I mean what team doesn't play opening night

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I mean what team doesn't play opening night

Team Kylington

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

How do you get to 36% then.

$1.75M all in as you agreed x 45 games (includes playoffs) x 31 teams is $2.44B

If that's 36% then league revenue is $6.8B not $5B.

Seems to me the 36% is incorrect.

We could both sit here all day and try to figure out what metric the league or whoever came up with to arrive at the $1.7M figure but until we know that I think it’s going to be somewhat pointless for either of us to multiply that figure by x to make an argument. I have not seen anything reported that says close to 50% of the league’s revenue comes from gate receipts, which is what your numbers suggest.

And expansion aside, the players getting 72% and no gate revenue would be a $1.1B loss. The assumptions aren't all that extreme in arriving there.

Extreme probably isn’t the right word, misguided might be more suitable. You’re making this argument without considering a number of relevant factors such as how much the league will save on operating costs compared to last year, how much revenue goes to taxes etc.

[AC]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336461682156167170

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336463088112062466

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336463714791383042

Expanded rosters with a taxi squad make a lot of sense.

As it stands the Flames have a nice collection of NHL capable extras I think.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336463088112062466

So the Oilers will be sent to the US too?

[kyuss275]

Originally Posted by AC

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336461682156167170

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336463088112062466

https://twitter.com/user/status/1336463714791383042

Expanded rosters with a taxi squad make a lot of sense.

As it stands the Flames have a nice collection of NHL capable extras I think.

It’s nice they have that, but I want those players playing in games. I don’t think you are going to see the top prospects on the taxi squad.

[getbak]

I wonder how the expanded rosters will work under the cap?

As it stands, the Flames are going to have a hard time getting 23 men under the cap, so if they expand the active roster to 26 without also increasing the cap, it won't make much difference because most teams won't be able to use it.

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by kyuss275

It’s nice they have that, but I want those players playing in games. I don’t think you are going to see the top prospects on the taxi squad.

It will be vets like Rinaldo and Robinson I think. Is the AHL even going to be having much of a season?

[Strange Brew]

Yeah I still don’t see much of a business case for the AHL playing. No fans, no TV?

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Yeah I still don’t see much of a business case for the AHL playing. No fans, no TV?

it behooves the NHL for the AHL to play games, so the NHL will probably bear the brunt of the costs

[ricardodw]

It would make sense to buy some spots on the Canadian AHL teams for guys who have a reasonable chance for a call up.

It would be very demotivating of have virtually no chance for a call up no matter how great you were doing in Stockton.


Also you would hope that the bureaucrats that are making up the rules ( and bending them to allow Canadian teams to hold training camps) would allow trans-border travel with no quarantine for players who already have recovered from Covid or had a vaccine or met the covid testing protocol that allow travel from US to Rome and Amsterdam with no quarantine on arrival.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by ricardodw

It would make sense to buy some spots on the Canadian AHL teams for guys who have a reasonable chance for a call up.

It would be very demotivating of have virtually no chance for a call up no matter how great you were doing in Stockton.

I would think that it would still be possible, but for sure it would add on 2-weeks per potential call-up (quarantine).

It absolutely could impact potential decisions on player development, but at the same time, these are COVID times and it may just not be feasible to do so. In a shortened season and additional taxi squad/roster spots, there probably would be fewer opportunities for some of these players to make the big club anyway.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Geeoff

it behooves the NHL for the AHL to play games, so the NHL will probably bear the brunt of the costs

Sure but you could have the benefit of your prospects playing against other prospects without setting up a league in different cities though.

Just how much is the NHL willing to bankroll for the sake of developing it's players for half a season?

[ricardodw]

Originally Posted by krynski

I would think that it would still be possible, but for sure it would add on 2-weeks per potential call-up (quarantine).

It absolutely could impact potential decisions on player development, but at the same time, these are COVID times and it may just not be feasible to do so. In a shortened season and additional taxi squad/roster spots, there probably would be fewer opportunities for some of these players to make the big club anyway.

The NFL has shown that a group of players can be eliminated from playing in a very short time period ( not wearing masks and being in a room with a covid positive person sidelined all 4 Dens QBs for a week when only one tested positive).

How many games can be re-scheduled or cancelled before the season is called off?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

We could both sit here all day and try to figure out what metric the league or whoever came up with to arrive at the $1.7M figure but until we know that I think it’s going to be somewhat pointless for either of us to multiply that figure by x to make an argument. I have not seen anything reported that says close to 50% of the league’s revenue comes from gate receipts, which is what your numbers suggest.



Extreme probably isn’t the right word, misguided might be more suitable. You’re making this argument without considering a number of relevant factors such as how much the league will save on operating costs compared to last year, how much revenue goes to taxes etc.

Is this you being nice again? I missed that last time and maybe missed it again.

Two sources have revenue at $1.7M and $1.8M per game. Math from there drives the revenue to 49%.

That's just as viable as your 36% from some obscure pay stats site.

Some more math ...

NHL attendance last year was an average of 17,380 per game.
Average aftermarket ticket price was $135

17,380 x $135 = $2.4M per game, way more than $1.7M and that doesn't include concessions.

So after market is up from the average price? Fair response. But to get ticket revenue to 36% on it's own you have to drop the price to $74, and that still doesn't include any concession or merch sales at games.

36% just doesn't hold water, it's not that hard to support $1.7M to $1.8M