Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-13-2012, 06:19 AM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Originally Posted by
Russo's part of that cabal of writers desperately searching for a negative out of everything lockout related. The scaling 49-47 proposal combined with Bettman's statement that this deal is negotiable up to 9/15 is essentially an offering of the 50/50 or 51/49 split we all know is ultimately going to be the deal that's agreed to. The issue is in the players' hands now. Any failure to reach a deal by Saturday is 100% the fault of the NHLPA.
or that issue is dumb because it still leaves the big problem that this CBA has. with out a system for teams that are in markets like Florida or Carolina or any other market where they struggle to generate revenue, we are still going to have the same damn problem.
Revenues go up so does the cap floor and those teams that have the player generated bandaid will go back to losing money, while the teams who are raking in are going to rake in more.
NHL is not doing anything to address this issue, i doubt players will agree to any deal that does not address this issue.
Now if the owners do something like this we might get a deal done, first under current HRR players go to 50%, 7% goes to ESCROW, owners give a good Revenue sharing plan that helps the struggling teams, and starting in the '13-'14 year, those players who gave money back have it returned to them as bonus payments in the 1-1.5% range per year, even if they retire in that time they get their money back, real money.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by forthewild