Creative CBA solutions? Do you have one? Have you seen any?
View Single Post
09-05-2012, 11:28 AM
Join Date: Dec 2011
Originally Posted by
The Wheeled Winger
the owners also need to be willing to give/make concessions.
So far, Mr. Fehr seems to be selling increased revenue sharing among the owners as something that will benefit the PA to the PA
So increased revenue sharing is certainly one thing that the owners can "give" to the players (it is something they're seeking)
RS isn't something the PA is selling to the PA. It's something the PA is telling the NHL that will solve their issues without the need to cut the split, and thus reduce player salaries. That's the only reason the PA is touting RS.
However as for things the NHL can give the players:
- less compensation for offer sheets (encourages OS to be made and thus gives RFA's more options)
- lower UFA age to 6 years (from 7)
Someone listed others, but it was a while back and I can't remember them.
Originally Posted by
The owners have a few things to give the players, and I believe they have signaled at least one in their last proposal.
The biggest thing is the idea of achieving the new % of HRR gradually, probably via something that will closely resemble a wage freeze for 3 or so years.
The next thing is the HRR definition. I believe that the NHL ... move more towards the current HRR definition.
The next thing is the contract stuff. I believe it is in both parties interest (at least in a linked to HRR CBA which seems most probable) to limit contract length and the huge upfront payments and light tails.
I would expect to see the Owners being willing to give up a little on this front (so long as it is a LONG CBA) to get a deal done, and Fehr is going to push this point hard the entire time.
EDIT: Many people bring up revenue sharing, but this is a red herring (as was the UFA age in the owners proposal). Revenue sharing is almost irrelevant to the actual situation, though it plays well in the media and amongst fans.
I guarantee that Fehr would let the NHL completely eliminate revenue sharing if the owners gave him the four points above.
Fehr wouldn't give it up, simply because it means the NHL needs less of a split to be sustainable. Most teams need a 45% split (current HRR) to have a shot at breaking even or posting a profit. That puts the floor around 41m, and the ceiling around 57m (unless things change). However this means the players take a 12% cut. Even using escrow to do it (so it's not a rollback that effects the entire contract, but only on a shorter term basis), the PA won't want to agree to this. Nor should they.
However with a much better RS system (and less/no rules/restrictions on how it's handed out), most teams could live with a 50-52% split (51%=48/64m floor and ceiling), again using current HRR. That means the players only need to take a 5-7% cut instead of a 12%. And if that cut the players took was put directly into RS, that 5-7% is equal to ~200m. Have the owners add a bit (so it's not entirely funded by the players) and RS could be up to 300m. With a floor of 48m, and potentially 10-20m in RS cheques for the bottom teams, that should bring most teams into the black on a yearly basis. If a team like Phoenix still can't stay in the black, and the owner doesn't want to lose money, then they move it (which will likely happen within 5 years anyway).
The NHLs issue isn't the cap/floor, or that some teams are losing money. It's that Toronto and the other big teams are raking in 2-3 times what most of the other teams are generating. That means the cap is either somewhere really low that most teams can afford it, and the big teams pull massive profits, or the cap is higher so the big teams only have reasonable profits and the rest of the league struggles. A comprehensive RS plan is needed in our NHL. I'm not a huge fan of it, but unless they scrap the floor to allow teams to spend to their internal budget, it's needed.
Last edited by Riptide: 09-05-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Riptide