View Single Post
09-10-2012, 05:09 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 868
vCash: 781
First and foremost the league and the pa need to use the median team revenue number rather than the average. (They use total, i believe, which by proxy means average.)

This will remove outliers from the equation, such as the Maple leafs and their revenue around the 200M mark.

If the numbers i found are correct the average team revenue is around 96M (in 2011-2012). The median is lower, at around 80M, and really represents the true average. (ie. 65% of teams are within a standard deviation from the median, but not the mean, and if my numbers are correct, it's actually even higher, around 72%).

This would mean that any further negotiating would cater to the majority of teams.

The real issue though is the definition of hockey related revenue. This can get incredibly complex, as certain teams don't get concession money, certain teams do, etc.

What I would propose is something a lot simpler. ie.) Base the revenue solely on ticket sales, merchandise and tv revenues. I think those 3 things would be an indicator of growth. (Ie - if the league is prosperous, the above 3 should grow proportionally to everything else.)

After those 2 things are handled, it's just applying a % split that both sides can agree on.

ie.) if under the current cba the average team makes 100M and the cap is 58M (or whatever is) and under my definition above, the median revenue (using the criteria i outlines is only 60M, then maybe the % of that is 100% to the PA or something to that effect.)

In my above example, if the league wanted to claw back even. they could say 90% instead of 100%. I think if they went to the players with that offer it would be received a little better, especially since it would directly incent the players to try their hardest to ensure growth.

As for the current signings, they could just manage this salary via escrow. (i think it's a reasonable option because it ties those players' salaries to league revenue growth, giving them incentive to perform on their contract. (In my opinion, all players should have some performance related portion of their salary but that could just be me)).

Tied to this, new signings under the cba could have a similar growth incentive. (ie. If you wanted to sign someone for a flat 3M /year, an automatic bonus would get thrown in, which would be the league targeted revenue growth each year. Ie.) if in yr 2 there is a target growth of 10% then the yr 2 salary would be increased to 3.3M) That catch would be, that that bonus portion is kept in escrow and not given if the revenue growth doesn't match the league target.

(the above part would be a tougher sell, but if worded properly, might find traction among the players. ie.) if the money is viewed as a bonus, rather than money they feel entitled to regardless.

PumpkinBomb is offline   Reply With Quote