Make or break season for Crawford?

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

This is true, but because most of these smaller teams make money off of the bigger teams, it's entirely justified to give the larger teams an advantage. It's much better than it was.

Nashville collects a ton of tv and league sponsorship money, and revenue without giving back a whole bunch in return. I don't think it's right to put MTL and NAS on completely equal footing. Without adjusting contract structures, the only advantage a big team has is the amount of front office staff and geography (in some cases).

I could understand that argument but then why have a hard cap? Seems like it's just for show.

 

[gmalis1]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how the revenue sharing in the NHL works?

Do the teams share in media (TV and radio) revenue? Is it just the network money (NBC and NHL network) or does it include local broadcasts? Or do the teams keep what they bring into their market?

Is attendance (ticket) revenue shared? Concessions? Parking?

I have no idea how this all works.

What exactly goes towards the cap?

 

[averagejoe]

I like Crawford. Don't love him. But I feel he's earned his keep. Pretty sure he had the best GAA in the playoffs? I feel that Crawford is an outstanding "shootout" goalie. And because of the Hawks offense, he often gets hung out to dry - sure he gives up a soft goal or two (but every goalie does) - and yet he still hunkered down and backstopped the Hawks to another Cup.

 

[DoobeeDoobeeDoo]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how the revenue sharing in the NHL works?

Do the teams share in media (TV and radio) revenue? Is it just the network money (NBC and NHL network) or does it include local broadcasts? Or do the teams keep what they bring into their market?

Is attendance (ticket) revenue shared? Concessions? Parking?

I have no idea how this all works.

What exactly goes towards the cap?

Good question, always assumed it was just ticket revenue and merchandise revenue. Didn't think about factoring those other things into play.

 

[HockeyDoug]

I could understand that argument but then why have a hard cap? Seems like it's just for show.

The big teams only have a marginal advantage compared to what they had before the cap.

 

[HockeyDoug]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how the revenue sharing in the NHL works?

I'll get back to this later.
Generally speaking, the league takes a cut of all sales of tickets and merchandise, in the 40% range. National sponsorships are split evenly across the board or among all the franchises in the market the sponsor is going for I believe. Local sponsorships (Morton's steak house, WGN, BCBSI, for CHI for example) go to the club with the league getting their cut.

 

[HockeyDoug]

If it doesn't have an NHL logo on it, I don't think the league gets a piece.

 

[gmalis1]

Hope this makes sense from a Predators website:

"The revenue sharing system is the financial mechanism which enables the Salary Cap, by taking money in part from teams that could afford to spend much more than the Cap (Toronto, the New York Rangers, Montreal, etc.) and distributing it to those which need help to fill out a roster that at least sits somewhere in the bottom half of the payroll range (Phoenix, Columbus, Carolina, Florida, Nashville, etc.). It's not simply a temporary assistance scheme for franchises going through a rough patch, it's a recognition that some markets are much, much bigger than the rest, but the league wishes to restrict the payroll range to some extent."

NHL Revenue Sharing Explained

Funding

"Subject to a few conditions, the NHL will take its league-wide Hockey Related Revenue figure (HRR) and multiply it by 0.06055 to determine the Redistribution Commitment for that season. Using the 2011-2012 HRR of $3.3 billion as an example, that would yield $200 million going into the revenue sharing plan.

"Under the new setup, there are three funding stages which fill up the revenue sharing pot. First, a maximum of 50% of the Redistribution Commitment is drawn from the Top 10 highest-grossing teams based on pre-season and regular season revenue. Each team's contribution is based on how much they earn over and above the 11th-ranked team, so the teams in the 8-10 spots don't pay in nearly as much as the top three, for example.

"Next, those teams participating in the Stanley Cup playoffs (regardless of their earning power during the regular season) chip in 35% of gate receipts from home playoff games. So the next time you hear someone spout that playoff home games are pure gravy to teams, slap them upside the head - that wasn't even the case under the 2005 CBA, but you still hear it from time to time.

"If, after those two phases, the Redistribution Commitment hasn't been raised, the league can chip in with centrally generated revenues, such as sales of Gary Bettman Fatheads and leftover player escrow funds."

Revenue Sharing Recipients

"In broad strokes, the basic idea is that the Redistribution Commitment is divided up among recipient teams to help bring them up to a Targeted Team Player Compensation level, which is a calculated value somewhere between the salary floor and the mid-point based on a number of factors. The distribution amounts for specific teams can be adjusted by a special Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee, which includes representatives from both the NHL and NHLPA, but the overall level of distribution must remain the same (in other words, if they bump one team's distribution up, those funds have to come out of someone else's distribution).

"What makes this latest version of revenue sharing interesting is that some of the barriers which prevented teams from receiving funds have been removed. For example, under the old deal, teams in large media markets (such as the New York Islanders and Anaheim Ducks) were banned outright from receiving funds. Now, teams in media markets of more than 3 million households can receive 50% of what the calculations would otherwise dictate. In addition, various performance parameters (paid attendance averaging at least 14,000, growing business at an above-average rate, etc.) have been removed. In the past, failing to meet those criteria could cause a team to lose 25-50% of their distribution. In place of those punitive measures, this CBA sets up an Industry Growth Fund, in which lagging teams submit business plans for how to improve and can receive loans or grants to help in that regard."

 

[HockeyDoug]

Nice find.