When will next season start? Return to Play Negotiations

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Hmm this is interesting sorry I honestly don’t and want to understand but are you saying that under the CBA Revenue is an after cost line item?

I always thought revenue was always before any costs. Then comes EBITDA, Net Income which are after expenses / cash flow statement etc.

Also, you’ve actually read the CBA?

From the CBA:
"The parties have described Hockey Related Revenues with a non-exhaustive list of Hockey Related Revenues (net of Direct Costs as defined herein, where specified herein),..."


""Direct Costs" shall mean any costs, including fixed and variable costs,
attributable to a revenue-generating activity. For example, the salary of an individual employed by a Club or Club Affiliated Entity whose duties contribute to revenue activities specified in this Article 50 may be apportioned among such revenue activities specified in this Article 50 as a Direct Cost to the extent such netting of Direct Costs is permitted, except that no portion of the salary of an individual who, in the ordinary course, works on any non-revenue generating activity of a Club or Club Affiliated Entity, as defined herein, may be included as a Direct Cost. Further, an allocation of arena occupancy costs, and general and administration expenses, such as finance, support and general management function costs, may not be included as Direct Costs."

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Interesting so the Hockey Related Revenue is an actual line item they kind of made up basically?

They definitely seemed to have created their own definition of revenue for this sake.

But it makes some sense. Partners share in the profits of a business, not the revenues.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Aarongavey

I guess you and Bingo have never read the CBA because it is net of direct costs. That means that you can deduct the direct costs related to creating the revenue (like deductions on your taxes).

First off just don't get why the need to be pissy, I'm just trying to dig into numbers.

And I can barely read legal documents that pertain to me directly, I have the attention span of a gnat.

Happy to incorporate if we can figure it out.

But the $1.7M and $1.8M estimates were explaining hockey related revenue so they were likely net and takes back to that 50% mark again in my mind.

But clearly this is pretty convoluted. The funny thing is the intent ... was just pointing out that starting the league at 72% of league's salaries and potentially nothing from a huge chunk of the league's revenue (36% or 50%) is pretty rough.

Just seems like detail chasing as a way to move the goal posts around for some in this discussion.

[The_Rug]

Does anybody know if the sources of HRR are defined? Is it everything entering there owners bank accounts (tickets, merch, concessions, advertisement revenue, TV deals. etc?) Or is there a specific list? In my mind, the whole business is hockey related revenue, but I know nothing about it.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

From the CBA:
"The parties have described Hockey Related Revenues with a non-exhaustive list of Hockey Related Revenues (net of Direct Costs as defined herein, where specified herein),..."


""Direct Costs" shall mean any costs, including fixed and variable costs,
attributable to a revenue-generating activity. For example, the salary of an individual employed by a Club or Club Affiliated Entity whose duties contribute to revenue activities specified in this Article 50 may be apportioned among such revenue activities specified in this Article 50 as a Direct Cost to the extent such netting of Direct Costs is permitted, except that no portion of the salary of an individual who, in the ordinary course, works on any non-revenue generating activity of a Club or Club Affiliated Entity, as defined herein, may be included as a Direct Cost. Further, an allocation of arena occupancy costs, and general and administration expenses, such as finance, support and general management function costs, may not be included as Direct Costs."

First of all, thanks for this.

To the discussion, that list of costs is pretty limited, and shouldn't significantly affect the $1.7M figure. Basically the salaries of people selling food and beer.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by The_Rug

Does anybody know if the sources of HRR are defined? Is it everything entering there owners bank accounts (tickets, merch, concessions, advertisement revenue, TV deals. etc?) Or is there a specific list? In my mind, the whole business is hockey related revenue, but I know nothing about it.

There is a list in article 50 of the CBA. It's quite a long list and there is a paragraph-long definition for each item, so I won't quote it here, but I can assure you it gets quite specific.

The thing is, ‘the whole business’ is not hockey-related revenue if the owners also manage the arena and book it for other events, or if there is a second tenant that shares in luxury-box revenue, or if more than one sports team is owned by the same company. (I believe all three of these conditions apply to CSEC.) So the intent of the exact definitions is to ensure that the players aren't grabbing 50% of revenue from non-NHL events in the arenas.

[Ryan Coke]

So while it sounds like revenue is net of some costs that are incurred to produce the revenue, it isn’t net of the owners costs of running the team (if I am understanding correctly). In other words, it isn’t the pure profit after running the team that is getting split between owners and players, the owners still need to fund the operation of the team out of their share of HRR.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

So while it sounds like revenue is net of some costs that are incurred to produce the revenue, it isn’t net of the owners costs of running the team (if I am understanding correctly). In other words, it isn’t the pure profit after running the team that is getting split between owners and players, the owners still need to fund the operation of the team out of their share of HRR.

Exactly.

[hwy19man]

Originally Posted by Tsawwassen

I've also heard that the Stars are not happy being placed in that western division. They will be lobbying to switch with the Wild.

'Two teams from the central time zone must be a part of the Pacific Division to keep balance, and the preference would be for those teams to be as close in proximity to one another as possible. "What happened here is that I think what they're gonna do is have two teams closer together go to the West and I think that'll be Minnesota and St. Louis. I think they'll both go in the Pacific Division and Dallas will end up in the Central," Elliotte Friedman said on Sportsnet 590 The FAN's Lead Off on Friday.' https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...lignment-plan/

[MrMike]

Yeah there was talk it was going to be St Louis going over but who knows now.

Any good team that goes over there is pretty much a lock for playoffs compared to playing with Vegas/Colorado/St Louis/Dallas

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

So now we have two sources saying $1.7M to $1.8M, and my running simple numbers and explaining them all the way ... and the only rebuttal is freebies?

How much impact do you think freebies would be?

Here's a table for you ...

So would it be fair to say your biggest issue with the idea of gate revenues being 36-39% of league revenues is because you believe that the cost of the average ticket is closer to $84 than $52? Other than that I’m not sure what the purpose of your chart is other than to show that no money is made on free tickets.

In my opinion I had to run it down to between 25 and 30% of tickets given away for free to approach the numbers you are suggesting.

You've wanted fact from me ... do you have a link suggesting the league is approaching the giving away of 1 in 3 tickets?

You want me to provide you a link that suggests your opinion is correct? I’m not the one who’s saying the league is giving away 1 in 3 tickets Bingo. How many times are you going to try and put words in my mouth to try and make your argument?

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

?

What season ticket holder is sitting in the fan zone? You can barely see the ice up there. I'm talkin nosebleeds.

The ones who have season tickets in those sections.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

So would it be fair to say your biggest issue with the idea of gate revenues being 36-39% of league revenues is because you believe that the cost of the average ticket is closer to $84 than $52? Other than that I’m not sure what the purpose of your chart is other than to show that no money is made on free tickets.



You want me to provide you a link that suggests your opinion is correct? I’m not the one who’s saying the league is giving away 1 in 3 tickets Bingo. How many times are you going to try and put words in my mouth to try and make your argument?

No the table shows that you'd have to be giving away a lot of tickets to move the model to 36% which was your suggestion.

Once again your summary is just way off ... and likely suited to keep your narrative alive.

You just keep moving the goal posts ... seems like you're more about not losing an argument than actually having a discussion.

Have a good one.

[tkflames]

I scanned through the first few pages but didnt find anything. Ks there any actual news on how negotiations are progressing, when a possible start date might be and if there are any votes coming up reflecting this?

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by tkflames

I scanned through the first few pages but didnt find anything. Ks there any actual news on how negotiations are progressing, when a possible start date might be and if there are any votes coming up reflecting this?

Was listening to Elliotte Friedman yesterday and he mentioned that they're just going through all the details with mid-January still the target. There's a lot of work to do (opt outs, where some teams will play if they can't play in their home rinks, etc.). Thinking is it might get to a vote later this week or early next.

NHL.com had a good article today with some Bettman quotes:

https://www.nhl.com/news/bettman-202...on/c-319817284

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

SEC regular season games average 6 million viewers. NHL on NBC SN average 300,000 viewers.

I don't see how that can translate into the NHL getting 3 times more money.

There's probably some bump in the $100 million for nhl.tv. But it's also hard to see a full out of market package selling over $100 million worth of Peacock or ESPN+ subscriptions.

It would be more attractive if it included all in market games, but that would step very heavily on the (for now) lucrative local TV deals.

Volume of games is way higher on an NHL deal, though, which is a bit of an equalizer.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

No the table shows that you'd have to be giving away a lot of tickets to move the model to 36% which was your suggestion.

Actually in your chart the amount of tickets being given away has no effect on the percentage of revenue generated. Remember this is the chart you made, so there’s no tricks here.

Once again your summary is just way off ... and likely suited to keep your narrative alive.

This argument is Hall of Vague worthy. So many words yet really says nothing at all.

You just keep moving the goal posts ... seems like you're more about not losing an argument than actually having a discussion.

2 in a row Bingo. If vaguely criticizing someone’s post made for a good argument you’d really be feeding me my lunch right now

Have a good one.

Thanks I always try to

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Actually in your chart the amount of tickets being given away has no effect on the percentage of revenue generated. Remember this is the chart you made, so there’s no tricks here.

The model reduces the attendance by a percentage ... that is, removed paying customers from the attendance totals.

If you do that you get less ticket revenue and with that a dropping percentage of total revenue if you held the ticket price static. In this case though it moves the ticket price upward to achieve the 36% you suggested.

Moving across you get roughly $105 for an average ticket price in order to have 30% of the tickets given away. I put the average ticket price in the league somewhere north of $100 but it's hard to pin down.

So no I think it demonstrates that you'd have to give away 1/3 of the tickets to make the 36% valid, which I don't see as likely.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

This argument is Hall of Vague worthy. So many words yet really says nothing at all.

Well its 16 words ... you may want to take on longer books if that seemed daunting.

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

2 in a row Bingo. If vaguely criticizing someone’s post made for a good argument you’d really be feeding me my lunch right now

Did I cut you off on Deerfoot last month? Seems oddly personal to me.

Do you think you're feeding me my lunch?

[Jay Random]

It looks to me rather like iggy_oi has got the conclusion he wants and constructed his arguments backwards from there, and is annoyed that anyone should point out that the arguments don't work.

It is almost never helpful to argue with people who do that, because they are not seeking truth but personal validation, and if they don't get what they are after, they take it personally. It's like trying to play pool with someone who only wants to use the cue as a backscratcher.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

It looks to me rather like iggy_oi has got the conclusion he wants and constructed his arguments backwards from there, and is annoyed that anyone should point out that the arguments don't work.

It is almost never helpful to argue with people who do that, because they are not seeking truth but personal validation, and if they don't get what they are after, they take it personally. It's like trying to play pool with someone who only wants to use the cue as a backscratcher.

They do have 82 posts to Bingo's 38. Once I got the sense of what was happening I scrolled past all of em.