$250 million is the average value of an NHL team. It isn't some made up number. Please read the article I posted.
No, you're wrong.
$250M is your estimate. Which just means it's a made up number that you think is fairly close whatever the real number is. However, it's irrelevant. The average price actually paid for an NHL team is $139M. Even that is irrelevant, since again owners don't buy their teams every year, and no one looks to buy an NHL team for a 1 year profit.
And again, the numbers I gave are not "league as a whole", it is the average per team.
League-wide profits in '10-11: $126.5M
'11-12 ~$110M (Your estimate, probably low)
Total league-wide for term of prior CBA: ~$942M
Average per team: ~$31.4M
Total league-wide revenues for term: $19.591B
Average per team: $653M
Average profit margin: 31.4/653 = ~4.8%
And paying outside the cap (players' share, more accurately) would solve the problem from the player's perspective (which is why they proposed it), but not the owners. Whether the owners are paying out of pocket or out of revenues before they go into their pocket means nothing. No matter how you try to phrase it, no matter what accounting chicanery you employ, you can't escape the simple mathematical fact that 50% + any amount of money needed to make up the shortfall = >50%. There is no way to get around it (barring requisite revenue growth of course). Owners either pay more than 50%, or players get less than they're owed next year. If players get less, it's either a straight pay cut, or that money is deferred. If deferred, then in later years owners again need to pay more than 50%, or future players take a larger relative pay cut (below 50%). It simply doesn't matter what you do. If existing contracts are honored, then in some year or another either owners need to pay more than 50%, or players need to earn less than 50%.
As for the numbers you posted, the revenues did show well, but those are not profits. The profts of $31 million per team for 6 years is very low. You are still looking at an average of 1.5%. Imagine how it is for the Red Wings who have a very successful franchise and Illitch is making less on his asset in comparison to others.
The point is that the profit in comparison to the asset is very low, which is what you are finally seeing. Now if it was a straight 50/50 split for the last 6 years, it would have been a lot more fair. Now, the owners are not going to get that true split for at least 6 years, but that is their own fault.
The owners can and should pay for every contract. The concept is very simple. If the split is 50-50, then the owners are responsible to pay the extra 7% out of pocket and off the salary cap to the players. i do get what you are saying though. In the salary cap era though, if the owners are shelling out the money for their decisions with a portion of it off the cap, then it can still work. All new contracts will be lower, and in future years, they will even out. Think of it as a 50/50 split from 2012-13 forward.
Haha, if it were only that easy.
Don't Bettman and the NHL want to see Crosby play this season?
Get this deal done already.