sawchuk1971
Registered User
- Jun 16, 2011
- 1,494
- 509
Predators Suffer From Lack Of Revenues (Mod: Why low payroll?)
- Thread starter sawchuk1971
- Start date
Webersmashpuck
Registered User
Haha you are wrong.
The Predators have been in the black or very very close to it the past couple of years. It was a term issue on Weber not money.
The Predators have been in the black or very very close to it the past couple of years. It was a term issue on Weber not money.
worstfaceoffmanever
These Snacks Are Odd
In a relative sense, yes, since our budget is the midpoint rather than the cap, but we were never unwilling to pay Weber the big bucks and we have the resources available to us to retain our core players (and before anyone cites the 07 off-season, that was very much an extenuating circumstance).
Growth has been slow and will continue to be slow. As attendance picks up and TV ratings increase (which probably means getting all 82 games on TV first), revenues will go up. Corporate support is growing, which helps, and ticket prices are middle of the pack in the NHL, we just have to start selling all of them.
Growth has been slow and will continue to be slow. As attendance picks up and TV ratings increase (which probably means getting all 82 games on TV first), revenues will go up. Corporate support is growing, which helps, and ticket prices are middle of the pack in the NHL, we just have to start selling all of them.
MaskedSonja
Registered User
I was a little confused when I saw the thread.
The past couple of seasons at least I've read nothing but good things about how the Preds have been gaining revenues and bringing more sponsors on board, their playoff run was a great success attendance wise-every indication I see is that hockey IS working in Nashville.
The past couple of seasons at least I've read nothing but good things about how the Preds have been gaining revenues and bringing more sponsors on board, their playoff run was a great success attendance wise-every indication I see is that hockey IS working in Nashville.
Don;t know how much money the PReds received from revenue -sharing, but without it I'm sure they would be well into the red......and as nice as it is to see the team gaining fans and revenue in Nashville if overall league revenues increase at a faster rate, the team will continue to have difficulty signing free agents and their own players. Shea Wber could be one of those next year or 2013 - whenever he becomes a UFA.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Making it to game 6 of the WSF last year probably guaranteed that Nashville could afford to bring Weber back at any cost. I don't think revenues this year were too big of an issue.
But the fact is they did get revenue sharing and are continuing to grow. So until something changes, I'm not worried...
With the CBA up next fall one has to wonder how much the successful teams want to keep giving handouts to the lower end teams. Why should a team like Detroit have to give Nashville money so they can pay a guy like Weber to compete against them? This is not the USSR the last I checked...
headsigh
leave at once!
My point is that I don't see why good owners that run their teams well should have to be punished for their success by giving handouts to bad owners. What's in it for them?
headsigh
leave at once!
Preventing the NHL from reverting back to a 6-team league, for one.
I can name the teams that don't rely or at least benefit from revenue sharing bonuses on one hand. Toronto, Montreal, Rangers, Minnesota, and that's it. Even Ottawa, Edmonton and Buffalo had to be bailed out at points.
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
Footing the bill now leads to the development of those struggling markets. More fans leads to more corporate sponsorship which generates more revenue into the league as a whole, to the benefit of every owner. Helping out another owner builds rapport, which builds owner solidarity and stabilizes the league.
[QUOTE=transcend;35645869]Preventing the NHL from reverting back to a 6-team league, for one.
I can name the teams that don't rely or at least benefit from revenue sharing bonuses on one hand. Toronto, Montreal, Rangers, Minnesota, and that's it. Even Ottawa, Edmonton and Buffalo had to be bailed out at points.[/QUOTE]
So what? The Oilers were poorly run by a crook in Pocklington (and poor ownership and management by EIG), and the Sabres were run by a crook in Rigas that was last seen taken away in handcuffs. Nashville had another crow bar hotel award winner in Boots. The good owners must be getting sick of handing these types money .
Make no mistake, the next fall the war drums will be loud and clear.
I can name the teams that don't rely or at least benefit from revenue sharing bonuses on one hand. Toronto, Montreal, Rangers, Minnesota, and that's it. Even Ottawa, Edmonton and Buffalo had to be bailed out at points.[/QUOTE]
So what? The Oilers were poorly run by a crook in Pocklington (and poor ownership and management by EIG), and the Sabres were run by a crook in Rigas that was last seen taken away in handcuffs. Nashville had another crow bar hotel award winner in Boots. The good owners must be getting sick of handing these types money .
Make no mistake, the next fall the war drums will be loud and clear.
No league has given back a salary cap and revenue sharing after it's been implemented in a CBA. Keep dreaming that Donny boy is somehow going to recreate a baseball style system into hockey, kid. Even there, the Yankees are subsidizing the Pirates, Royals and Marlins with direct handouts. There will be no war drums. There will be some kind of adjustment and no games will be lost because they can't afford to screw around big time twice in a decade.
I think the war will be owner versus owner actually. The NHLPA would be in good position to exploit it and reap a big windfall imo.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Because those successful teams are making more profit now, with a cap - even with revenue sharing - than they would in an uncapped world.
Absent a cap, you would likely be seeing $100M+ payrolls - based on the salary inflation we saw before the lockout and the fact that revenues have increased by >40% since the lockout.
The cap has given the Leafs a license to print money. Their revenues are increasing and their largest cost is capped (and increasing at a slower rate than their revenues).
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,204
- 23,917
5 posts in and the *****ing about handouts has already begun. 
Anyways, I believe the issue with Weber and Poile has more to do with term than money. Poile has said all along that he is more than willing to back up a dump truck with Benjamins to Weber's house.
With the cap rising at a pace greater than anticipated, signing a long term deal right now would not be the best buisness option. Especially if Weber (and his agent) are looking at it in term's of salary vs. in term's of percentage of teams' cap hit.
Anyways, I believe the issue with Weber and Poile has more to do with term than money. Poile has said all along that he is more than willing to back up a dump truck with Benjamins to Weber's house.
With the cap rising at a pace greater than anticipated, signing a long term deal right now would not be the best buisness option. Especially if Weber (and his agent) are looking at it in term's of salary vs. in term's of percentage of teams' cap hit.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,204
- 23,917
I hate getting off topic (not really, it is what makes HFBoards so great!!), but Illitch and friends all voted for the CBA. Why would they suddenly decide that they HATE the Cap when they are making MORE money under it then ever before?
However, I agree that the next CBA will be owners vs owners. Karmanos and his ilk have said that this rising cap is getting to absurd (ie, not profitable) levels. So either the system that devises the cap will be revised, or revenue sharing will be increased.
I don't see how they will do away with the cap however.
I hate getting off topic (not really, it is what makes HFBoards so great!!), but Illitch and friends all voted for the CBA. Why would they suddenly decide that they HATE the Cap when they are making MORE money under it then ever before?
However, I agree that the next CBA will be owners vs owners. Karmanos and his ilk have said that this rising cap is getting to absurd (ie, not profitable) levels. So either the system that devises the cap will be revised, or revenue sharing will be increased.
I don't see how they will do away with the cap however.
It may be difficult to get rid of the cap, but not impossible. Look, the only way the current system works is through significant revenue sharing, unlike now. Rich owners may decide that it is in their best interests to go back to the a free market system like before and spending their money how they see fit as opposed to being tied into some dystopian fantasy system. The revenue gap is just too wide. Nashville and others may have to fend for themselves I think. It may suck but that's just how life is.
There is absolutely no way that rich owners will decide to uncap their spending. They make more money now than they did prior to the cap. If they have to hand out some money to make a lot more than they did prior to 2005, that's something they will be more than happy to live with as it is done with businesses all the time.
You never want to say never but getting rid of the cap is NEVER going to happen.
That's ridiculous. Without revenue sharing the team might lose 6-10 teams, leaving 20 to 24.
Which is more than enough.
You mad?
Don Fehr broke a league with over 6 billion in revenue. The NHL is small potatoes.
And it looks like the NBA won't be getting that hard cap, so I consider that a step back.
This is true although anything can happen. Spending big money and then writing an artificial loss maybe worth it if it increases the chance of winning the cup. Then again Detroit does not care either way.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,204
- 23,917
In the current system, there is a limit to how much an owner can spend.
As in, there is a limit on how much the players can earn. This is because the salary cap and salary floor is tied directly with League revenues.
Having a system based on how much profitability the company/consortium (whichever you may prefer) is making is MUCH more attractive to large market's then the former system where they had payroll's of an upward's of 100 million dollars (in some cases). This is because they are still able to reap the benefits of sold out houses/insane ticket prices/great TV contracts/luxury suite's/advertising/endorsements that comes with being in a large market and/or having been around forever.
Giving part of what you earn to the markets that lack the above, for whatever reason and making more money (bolded for emphasis) is better than making less money and keeping it all to yourself.
Now, I must reiterate that the current system is steadily increasing the revenue gap, and that will cause some of the smaller market teams to turn against the way that cap is devised. But the big market teams I cannot see.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
GDT: SCP24 | RD2 | GM6 | Dallas Stars @ Colorado Avalanche | 9:00PM CT | TNT- Latest: Dynamite Time
