View Single Post
09-14-2012, 05:22 PM
Eddie Vedder
Registered User
Eddie Vedder's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,536
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
What's wrong with your proposal - just one thing. The de-linked cap which the owners don't want.

What you're proposal shows is that even with a very conservative revenue growth, the players don't seemed as justified to hold such a hard line for guaranteed salaries in the long terms.

Also shows the NHL shouldn't be so hardlined against the players' guaranteed salary idea.

However, the risk on the NHL feeling the effects of even coming close to a lockout is very much alive and needs to be accounted for.

A hybrid of the 2 systems to protect both side may be the answer...

Players get $1.87 billion/ yr for the duration of the CBA as long as $1.89 bil is less than 56% of total revenue. - protection for the league in down or plateaued yrs.
Flip side:
$1.89 bil/yr until the value drops to 48% of total revenue, at which point it snaps back to 51ish% of total revenue and becomes linked the following yr and going forward

SO many options and viable structures that would work. They are a lot closer than the media is working to make it sound... by design.

They aren't far apart enough to justify the players to begin losing $23mil/gm... $23/gm they would never get back.

It's why i hold optimistic that this doesn't go past Oct1st-ish.

Owners will never give up linkage on a permanent basis, thats why I would consider it only unlinked until it reaches a pre-negotiated "split" of 50/50 or 51/49 etc. Then the cap would once again link to revenue and possibly grow along with revenues again.

As I said in the OP, the sticking point for the players is having to give up a big % of contracts negotiated in good faith. I am 100% behind them on that, its totally uncalled for and bad business to expect legal contracts to be garnished like that on such a mass scale.

My proposal ensures that the players would keep their guaranteed dollars, and the league would achieve is greater percentage of HRR within a relatively short time period.. after the correct division is acheived then revenue linkage "snaps back" to action and the cap is free to grow. If growth isnt acheived, players pay their escrow % to meet targeted declines in their share (which is the same as it is now).

Eddie Vedder is offline   Reply With Quote