View Single Post
08-14-2012, 12:30 PM
Coyote Killer
Thrice's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by piston View Post

Thanks for the note. I agree that the recent strength of the Canadian dollar is responsible for at least 50% of the rise in league revenues and subsequent lifting of the cap to where it is,today. The total revenue number is denominated in U.S. dollars. Even if Canadian team revenues don't budge on an absolute basis, they go up relatively if the Canadian dollar rises relative to its U.S. counterpart. I don't believe the U.S. dollar will rise because Canada has far better fiscal and monetary policies than we do, and because the Canadians are not a bunch of idiots and actually exploit their oil and gas resources, but that is for another discussion...

Fehr's strategy has always been to stretch salaries on the top end because he knows that will lift those in the middle and bottom eventually thanks to salary arbitration. Hence, he wants to have a few high revenue team that will spend wildly on the stars. Revenue sharing impinges on those teams' ability to spend at will. Put another way, Nashville is stuck paying Weber far more than they had planned because the Flyers don't have the same fiscal constraints. If the Flyers had to pay a penalty for spending, they would have been more rational in how much they offered Weber. As you correctly surmise, there will now be a host of second tier d-men who will see their pay pulled up by the height of the Weber ceiling.

The question I have is how much power will the players cede Fehr. Fehr could not care less about the long term health of the business. he only wants to extract the maximum that he can in the short term. That was his MO in Baseball. The problem is that Hockey is stil not as well established and lacks a monster TV deal. Do the players really want to go through another lost season? We shall see.
Are you serious? I'm not sure what you have against Fehr but the broad-stroked picture you paint of him makes it sound like a personal attack.

Fehr's stance on revenue sharing is exactly the opposite of what you claim it is.

Here's an article about Fehr's dealings with MLB, including a direct quote about revenue sharing from 2002:

...Fehr also committed to increasing revenue sharing, but management officials said the players' initial proposal was to raise the amount of locally shared revenue to 22.5% from 20%, rather than the 50% in the owners' plan. The owners would also impose a 50% luxury tax on the portions of payrolls above $98 million.

"We believe there should be additional revenue sharing," Fehr said. But he pointed out that the owners' proposal would divert money to middle-market clubs instead of to the truly needy, and he said baseball should develop a "split pool" that would give the bottom teams more resources.

Thrice is offline