View Single Post
09-19-2012, 01:18 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,000
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
Why would any player who has to negotiate a contract in the next 4 years vote for that? and why would the 18 or so owners losing money agree to it?
Why? Because it avoids the prospect of losing another season to a lockout while allowing both owners and players to claim victory.

A mid tier player is likely to fork over between 3-5 million over the season, plus their future share is only going to get smaller when revenue shrinks due to the lost season...even if it does eventually grow back. Mike Modano estimated he lost 7 million due to the lockout...which is something hardly any player is going to gain back over their career, even if they give back some of their share of revenue in the now.

It gives the owners 5 to 7 % share points down on the 57% over the term of the CBA. (which, if things are as bad as the NHL claims, there will be 3 teams losing 15 + in year 4 to trigger the drop to a 50-50 split) If the NHL cannot live with a 50-50 split at the worst, it should give the PA proof that a real revenue sharing plan needs to be formed in the following CBA. Depending on revenue, that cuts 5-7.7 million off the cap based on 3.3 billion in revenue. Again, it shares the burden between the players cutting losses via their checks and on the owners to run the team better in general.....for example by signing better leases for the arenas and saving money elsewhere. This closes the gap for almost every team in the league to balancing out, but does not eliminate poorly run teams from losing money. (at 3.3 billion, a 50% share equals out to a 55 million cap versus a 62.7 cap, a 7.7 drop, presuming revenue does not grow a penny from now till 6 years out, at 52 it would make the cap 57.2, still a 5 million drop in the cap)

Why? The floor drops slightly to help out financially strapped teams. If a team really cannot afford the floor, they can acquire a big contract from other teams to get there at half the salary.

Why? It limits players contracts lengths to something reasonable, but still allows players to get some decent term and is not as drastic as the NHL's proposal. A very small segment of players would be impacted by this.

Why? Players would probably not have to give a roll back, as the tiered approach would allow for contracts to balance out. Worst case they lose a small amount via escrow.

Why? The last few days before the 15th proved that players knew things would be worse under a new CBA...thus yeah, players signing over the next few seasons are going to get the shaft a bit...but at a share in the low 50's verses the mid 40's like the NHL is holding the line at.

It is the middle ground, slightly tilted towards the players.....which is why the players would propose it. It is not great for either side, but gets them close enough together to potentially get a deal.

Last edited by Drury_Sakic: 09-19-2012 at 01:32 AM.
Drury_Sakic is offline   Reply With Quote