Should the habs buy anyone out?
View Single Post
06-19-2011, 03:17 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Originally Posted by
Thanks Ozy I meant to write that you bring down the ceiling as well but you're right in the players wanting to maintain their 57% of revenue and that any cap movements wouldn't work in the way that I laid out.
Given what's going on in the NFL and NBA with the owners wanting to have a lower percentage of revenue go to the players (I think i've read 50%)
it wouldn't surprise me if the NHL pushes for a lower % again
. Even though in general sports is a terrible way to make earn a return on your investment (except for the appreciation of your capital investment) I think all the owners wouldn't mind a lower percentage - it's been very good for teams like Toronto and the Rangers.
If ever that happens, they will cut the % across the board, for all players, to fit all cap salaries vs the new representation of their share on the new cap limits. Like the 23-24% they cut off before installing the cap system.
I've kind of got us down the CBA rabbit hole, but I think that the NHL has a revenue distribution problem rather than a revenue or cost problem. The simplest solution in terms of bargaining with the players would be to just increase revenue sharing but the rich owners won't go for that. I expect that they'll try to bargain for a lower percentage of revenue going to the players.
I don't think players will agree to a lower %, and as you said, the rich owners will always be in the way of fixing the biggest problem which is revenue sharing among owners. The revenue sharing itself is a bit whack as it accounts for total revenues of teams, not the total profit.
Frankly though, the owners and their management teams will find some way to screw things up.
They had almost a blank slate with the NHLPA last season and still managed to have their "cost certainty" grow out of the reach of a fair number of teams.
Though nothing is perfect, I feel it is a far better system than what was in place before. It's a viable system that has made its proofs in the short time it's been here. The players agreed to take less money, as long as there was a plan in place to increase the revenues, so that their new total share (57% of 3 billion = 1,7 billion TODAY) would be bigger than it was (75% of 1,8 billion = 1,35 billion) by the time the new CBA ends, without adding any new teams.
People can say what they want about the owner's/Buttman's sunbelt plan, and rightly so, but as far as the cap system is concerned, it seems to be the right solution and both parties got what they wanted, and I don't see why they wouldn't continue this way. The present trend is that they'll continue with this system, as there wasn't any squabbles at renewing it's optional years (even adding non-existent optional years). Although, that might just be a sign that the players are taking their time in building their next fight against the owners.
If there are compliance buy-outs it means the players will be receiving a lower percentage of league revenues
(and thus the cap goes down), which isn't necessarily a good thing for the Habs from a competitive advantage standpoint.
Thanks again Ozy.
The causality is far more complex than that, and wouldn't result in your conclusion IMO. From what I understand about how they manage the cap, they always leave a little room for surplus in the escrow tax, meaning that they put the halfway margin of the cap a little higher then the 57%, so that if the league has a surplus in revenues, the players get those extra revenues, instead of ending up getting 54-55%. The cap is intended to be ever-growing, as all business are concentrated on growth. The league has a set number of roster spots, that fluctuates at around 700 yearly, and there is no change in this. So if there is ever a flurry of compliance buyouts, it will be part of several measures to tweak the system, like % cut across the board, which will leave the same margin in the end, for any rich team like the Habs.
Also, compliance buyouts would be seen as a marching step towards removing garanteed contracts, and players, IMO, will never agree to this, or even a smaller form of circumventing garanteed contracts.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ozymandias