View Single Post
Old
09-14-2012, 04:48 PM
  #6
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
 
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lush View Post
The idea was discussed quite a bit last week (from what I remember) and this was one of the more popular ideas that was being tossed around. Freeze the cap, let it go back up once the split shifted to the owners a bit more.

I haven't commented on the CBA much either, it's hard to stomach the conversation to be honest. But the problem truly seems to be the disparity in revenues between the clubs. You have a bunch of clubs swimming in money and a bunch hemorrhaging money. The clubs making money are making more proportionately which is why the cap keeps going up. The clubs losing money have to reach the ever rising cap floor and are going bankrupt in the process.

What you suggested is almost common sense, to me it seemed a likely outcome if they don't actually lock out (that being the agreement would look something like this). If they do lock out and get more time to fight about it I think we might see more creativity in the end agreement. Fehr may come up with something and the joke circulating now is that as soon as Fehr can make his solution look like Bettman's idea the lockout will be over.

They need to think outside the box, be able to trade salary or money or cap space, have designated players that are cap exempt and be able to trade those slots from poor teams to rich teams for cash, something that allows the rich teams to help out the poor teams. Contraction would do the trick but the PA wouldn't like it.
If they phased in a more aggressive revenue sharing idea at the beginning to offset the transition period, where the players share moves downward.. would that be a feasible idea?

Even if you drop the growth rate to 2% the league/player split would hit 50/50 3-4 seasons. If the PA is so confident in growth, they take the risk by agreeing that if league revenues do NOT grow at ~4%, then escrow claws back the difference. If they truly believe in a 7% growth rate, the owners share will be at 50ish % in 1-2 seasons, then linkage to revenue can be "turned on" again.

Its impossible to find a way to make every team profitable as long as people like Charles Wang own teams that make asinine hockey decisions over and over.

Has the league every implied or hinted that the floor could be negotated down as well?

Eddie Vedder is offline   Reply With Quote