Shouldn’t these things have been knowable or at least foreseen as possible risks when negotiating the contract. I’m not saying I know all the facts but I don’t see what shocking new development has come up that couldn’t be contemplated since they signed that agreement.
It also seems that we hear about the teams that don’t want to play or that are about to go under during every labour issue. It is certainly a useful card to play. Why aren’t we hearing about the teams that would be pissed if another season was lost because of placating the basket-case franchises?
Again, I have no problem if they want to try get a better deal but we shouldn’t expect the players just to roll over for them. They will be looking for concessions and/or some other way of reducing the burden of low revenue franchises.
It’s also likely that NBC wouldn’t be amused if the league fell on its face and couldn’t get a season going as they’re looking to renegotiate their contract.
Everyone is reporting no contact in the week since Gary dropped this proposal after daily meetings.
- Canada Cup
The teams that are struggling are covered in the ownership side of franchise agreements. Essentially, once the HRR split is on the “make good”, then additional portions of revenue are given to teams that suffered losses. This was brought up several times when Vegas was working on getting a team. You just have to be willing to deep dive on some of the language when it is released. Part of the “attraction” the NHL sells to new owners is, “we’re here to help”. Luckily, Vegas had a fantastic first season.
When Nashville missed the playoffs ownership made it clear that they were losing money that year. San Jose ownership has made the point several times. Ottawa is another club that cites serious financial issues. Arizona, though with a new owner, is already looking to cut expenses. It’s not a lot of fun to dig through these things, but the information is there.
the other unique problem owners are having is if they have multiple sports teams. Basketball is losing revenue as well, so any group that has those two sports is seeing two simultaneous losses and that adds up quickly. The numbers you can use frequently are how Hockey Related Revenue is being handled. The last CBA made it a 50-50 split with the owners. So, if players are paying 20%, that year the league only made 30% of the total revenues after salaries were paid. That 20% is the “make good”. All of the expenses are based on projections. So, last year when they announced a billion dollar shortfall, that is how much money had not been recovered from paying out salaries and expenses. No one could have seen the full drop off on revenues. Basketball is much more popular in North America and they dropped of 70% in viewership. Hockey dropped off 60%. There were also penalties teams have to pay because the season didn’t go 82 games based on local television affiliates.
It’s hard to keep track of how the NHL machine is able to run. Football and basketball can live much more comfortably on their tv deals. Hockey relies on ticket sales for half of the total revenue they bring in. It’s an expensive sport in terms of how buildings have to keep ice, equipment, travel, personnel etc. a lot more goes into getting a team on ice than getting it onto a court or a field. My critique for ownership is, why are teams that consistently lose money year after year still being allowed to function in that capacity? It creates a massive issue anytime there is a hiccup in finances.
