The Importance of the Players vs CSA Pay Dispute

[Watchmen]

33 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I know my numbers are arbitrary but in order for a revenue share to be meaningful, we’d need to see a somewhat substantial share%, and a wild increase in sponsorship dollars. There’s no evidence to suggest there’s heaps of money just waiting to be secured. 

We're 2 years away from hosting the World Cup. The sponsors will be coming out of the woodwork soon to leap on board and be a part of it, even if it's just for the short term. It's up to every stake holder to ensure they're prepared to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity.

[Aird25]

38 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

Didn’t think of what can can offer before. Good thinking. 

 

Although I agree that there’s likely lost revenue, there’s many factors to this.  Multiyear contracts, no World Cup, the players filed a cease and desist etc. 

again, I’m a broken record player but the best we’ve ever seen is 8mil in revenue. Minus 4mil payment and at a 50/50 split of what’s left over is 2million to csb.

 Csb would need to generate 4 million more revenue  (50/50 split) to get back to the 4 million.  I just don’t see that sort of massive increase being realistic.  
 

public perception would obviously help for sponsorship but a revenue share isn’t going to swing the tide for heaps of money. We have this nonsense drone scandal that’s tainting us much harder than csb is (currently).  
 

I know my numbers are arbitrary but in order for a revenue share to be meaningful, we’d need to see a somewhat substantial share%, and a wild increase in sponsorship dollars. There’s no evidence to suggest there’s heaps of money just waiting to be secured. 

What isn't arbitrary is your claim that there is no possibility for CSB to make more money

25 minutes ago, Ottawafan said:

The players changed their position because they came to the realization the CSA has no money… after the CSA just pocketed $8M this summer?

CSA pocketed $8M this summer?

[Bigandy]

11 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

We're 2 years away from hosting the World Cup. The sponsors will be coming out of the woodwork soon to leap on board and be a part of it, even if it's just for the short term. It's up to every stake holder to ensure they're prepared to take advantage of this once in a lifetime opportunity.

Of course. You’re 100% right. But what is the best way to make sure you’re ready for it. 
 

from the csb’s perspective: sharing revenues will lower revenues. Will sharing revenues be significant enough to make more than they would if they didn’t share revenues?  Like you said, there will be sponsors coming out for 2026 and I believe that is regardless of the revenue share agreement. 

[Bigandy]

9 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

What isn't arbitrary is your claim that there is no possibility for CSB to make more money

CSA pocketed $8M this summer?

You’re right. To be black and white is lazy typing.  
 

I should have said, there would have to be some unforeseen extreme changes that are directly and singularly causally connected to the revenue share for the csb to make more money compared to no revenue share.  I don’t believe that sponsors care much about the revenue share (of course they care about public perception but a revenue share that no one will hear about isn’t changing public perception to the extreme when the drone scandal etc is still around). 
 

I mean. We are talking somewhere around a 50% increase in sponsorships because of a revenue share model being announced. Doesn’t that wild increase sound unlikely to you?  

[Aird25]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

You’re right. To be black and white is lazy typing.  
 

I should have said, there would have to be some unforeseen extreme changes that are directly and singularly causally connected to the revenue share for the csb to make more money compared to no revenue share.  I don’t believe that sponsors care much about the revenue share (of course they care about public perception but a revenue share that no one will hear about isn’t changing public perception to the extreme when the drone scandal etc is still around). 
 

I mean. We are talking somewhere around a 50% increase in sponsorships because of a revenue share model being announced. Doesn’t that wild increase sound unlikely to you?  

I don't get it. 80% of a million is more than 100% of 750k. That increase could be made up by a single new sponsor signing on

[Bigandy]

5 minutes ago, Aird25 said:

I don't get it. 80% of a million is more than 100% of 750k. That increase could be made up by a single new sponsor signing on

Right. But it’s not 1 million. It’s 8 million 
 

your choosing 80-20 split which seems low based on the aggressive demands of the public… would only 20% be enough to sway public perception which is the ultimate goal of this theoretical sponsorship concept.
 

Here's my numbers:

Csb gives up 1.6million to csa.  

to make up 1.6 with the 80/20 split is 2 million (20% goes to csa) in further sponsorship (not considering the costs to get these sponsorships)

therefore the csb needs to beat our best year ever with a 25% increase that is strictly due to the revenue share. I don’t believe that we can increase revenues by 25% because we have a revenue share.

 

2 of our biggest sponsors are Telus and CIBC  both signing multi year deals after the csb thing started.

 

Where would 2million in sponsorship come from some unknown fence sitting sponsors…?

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 hours ago, Aird25 said:

CSA pocketed $8M this summer?

Yes, probably in CDN dollars, more.

[archer21]

14 hours ago, Bigandy said:

Right. But it’s not 1 million. It’s 8 million 
 

your choosing 80-20 split which seems low based on the aggressive demands of the public… would only 20% be enough to sway public perception which is the ultimate goal of this theoretical sponsorship concept.
 

Here's my numbers:

Csb gives up 1.6million to csa.  

to make up 1.6 with the 80/20 split is 2 million (20% goes to csa) in further sponsorship (not considering the costs to get these sponsorships)

therefore the csb needs to beat our best year ever with a 25% increase that is strictly due to the revenue share. I don’t believe that we can increase revenues by 25% because we have a revenue share.

 

2 of our biggest sponsors are Telus and CIBC  both signing multi year deals after the csb thing started.

 

Where would 2million in sponsorship come from some unknown fence sitting sponsors…?

I think you're probably right that it doesn't make sense financially for CSB to do this. They might do it anyways just to get away from all the bad PR. They're also people that want to advance the game in Canada, so they may be willing to concede for the good of the game, if they believe it'll still be profitable in the end. I'm not sure how much the bad publicity has negatively impacted CPL (my guess is not much), but that could be a contributing factor too.

[Bigandy]

2 hours ago, archer21 said:

I think you're probably right that it doesn't make sense financially for CSB to do this. They might do it anyways just to get away from all the bad PR. They're also people that want to advance the game in Canada, so they may be willing to concede for the good of the game, if they believe it'll still be profitable in the end. I'm not sure how much the bad publicity has negatively impacted CPL (my guess is not much), but that could be a contributing factor too.

You’ve summed up my thoughts well. I see a change coming and csb contributing but I don’t think that just giving up part of the pie creates a bigger pie in this instance.