View Single Post
09-07-2012, 11:03 AM
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,079
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Depending on what's defined as revenue (and of course, both sides have their own definition), the split could already be considered 50/50.

I could be wrong, but I believe the owners are trying to change the definition of what constitutes hockey revenue, while at the same time trying to make the split 43/46 - 57/54 in favor of the owners. And that's where the problem lies. In the owners new proposed definition of what constitutes "hockey revenue", the current 57/43 split in favor of the players is actually closer to 50/50.

So if they changed the definition AND asked players to take less than the current 57/43 split, it would no longer be technically 50/50. It WOULD be 50/50 of the newly defined definition of revenue, but in terms of what's considered revenue currently, a 50/50 split would favor the owners greatly.

Best analogy I can give (and I probably shouldn't, given how poorly these typically turn out) is if we had 50 apples that we split 57/43. Let's say 25 red, 20 are green, and 5 are yellow. In the current split, I'd get 30 apples and you'd get 20 apples, regardless of color.

Then we decide on a new deal to split the apples, 50/50. However, while at the same time we're working out this 50/50 deal, you decide that under a new definition, only green apples can be called "apples". Thus, we split the 20 green apples 50/50, while you keep the 30 remaining ones, giving a split closer to 20/80 rather than 50/50.

Basically, to get a 50/50 split, there needs to be a concession of one or the other on the owners side. They can either keep what constitutes revenue at it's current definition and get a 50/50 split, or they can change what constitutes revenue and accept the current 57/43 split. However, since the owners have the leverage, chances are they're going to be able to change the revenue definition and get a 50/50 split, leaving to some seriously unhappy players.
That's way too many words and way too many unknown assumptions. In the end, I believe the players will have to come down some on the % of revenue they are currently receiving. Whether it be over time, through an escrow, or however, I can't see it staying at the current level.

And I agree it will result in some unhappy players, but I can't see any agreement by the owners that doesn't result in some unhappiness by players.

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote