View Single Post
Old
11-12-2003, 03:46 PM
  #6
Emule Richard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by discostu

I also would like to see a statement by the NHLPA explaining why they are so against a salary cap. They obviously feel that a reduction in salary is necessary, based on their current CBA offer. Are they opposed to the cap in principal, or are they against it because the owners continue to suggest caps at levels that will involved a much more drastic reduction in salary than they are willing to take. If the owners were discussing a higher cap (say $40 to $50 million), would they consider it?
At this point, I think a main reason that the NHLPA is currently so opposed to a cap is because of the teams' lack of complete financial disclosure. Without verifiable, fair financial statements for all teams, as well as in depth interpretations of them, the NHL has its cost certainty, but there is no certainty whatsoever for the players and their salary limitations; the NHL gains complete control over salaries once again because THEY set the cap because ONLY THEY know what revenues (whether manipulated or not) really are. Maybe if the salary cap were at a higher level and the NHLPA and a group of highly scrutinizing accountants were satisfied with the revenue numbers and financial statements produced, the NHLPA could possibly consider looking at a salary cap...it all depends...even then, unless new information is presented to me, I hope the league maintains its objection to a salary cap. If the owners can't manage their budgets, that's their own problem. Teams are starting to smarten up (see Boston, New Jersey), but there are still a lot of idiot GMs out there (when it comes to business) IMO.

To equalize the teams in the league, I think that a higher degree of revenue sharing would solve a majority of the NHL's problems. The biggest problem today, which causes teams to have a difficult time making a profit, is that some teams can offer top-line players big money, and some can't. If revenue is moved to the smaller market teams, they will have more money to spend on the top line talent that would have otherwise ended up with large market teams. Also, the 60-40 proposal for ticket sales could help. Regardless, revenue sharing equalizes the teams and puts more emphasis on management, as opposed to money, in creating a competetive balance amongst teams.

As for the rest of the offer, I am really happy to see Goodenow taking such a collaborative approach to this. It implies that he wants to see both sides benefit from these negotiatons. However, I am disappointed with Bettman's win-lose type approach thus far, and I hope it doesn't continue throughout negotiations because it will no doubt result in a lock-out. Luckily, it is still early in negotiations, so his response is very reasonable, as it is probably just a tactic to get more out of the PA because the pressure isn't on yet.

With this reasonably considerate offer by the NHLPA, things look a bit better for 2004.

Emule Richard is offline