The Lockout Thread: Good Things Come To Those Who Wait
View Single Post
09-07-2012, 11:03 AM
Boom Boom Anton
Join Date: Sep 2006
Originally Posted by
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
View Public Profile
Boom Boom Anton's albums
Find More Posts by Boom Boom Anton