View Single Post
Old
09-19-2012, 08:52 AM
  #374
garret9
AKA#VitoCorrelationi
 
garret9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 10,504
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Writer View Post
You can't explain it. I believe the owners acted disingenuously over the course of the summer in dishing out those contracts for term and $$$ knowing specifically what was coming. Yes, the players had to have an idea of what was coming, but the owners new specifically what was coming and acted in bad faith in negotiating those deals. If I'm at the NHLPA and the players have to take a pay-cut, say 15% then all those contracts for term not meeting the new criteria under the negotiated CBA should be declared null and void and I hope both Suter and Parise walk and sign somewhere else. It would serve Leopold right for the way he acted this past summer.
Sigh...
People need to seperate what happened under the current CBA rules and what they want the rules to be. The owners, like Leopold acted as such because, under the current system and increased demand, the players values were such. You can't expect the owners to all meet up and say ok we will only pay 2 mill for this guy and 3 mil for that guy when they are competing and bidding against each other. The CBA contracts meanwhile are (supposed) to be about what's good for the league overall (although I think either side has really been working that way and thus the situation we have).

Have the owners done stupid things, yes. But, can you really say the players, Fehr and NHLPA also haven't been stupid.

The problems are:
*contracts' cost rates have slowed down since pre lockout, but are still growing too fast for the financially losing team
*the cap floor is always the same $value away from the cap meaning the floor moves faster than the ceiling and the space between the two is decreasing (%wise) which when you think about players being the main cost, you can see how this cap floor situation is hurting the cap floor teams
*league revenues have been growing but (except for a very small minority) slower than player salaries, and also other inflationary costs

So again, what I think needs to happen:
*gradual decrease to 50/50 split in order to decrease costs for lower teams. This will not work alone; it needs the other points.
*increased rev share to lower end teams. Sorry big owners, suck it up; the 50/50 split should pad a bit for the big owners so its not as much of a loss
*cap ceiling to be either frozen/sloweddown to inflation rates or an algorithm based on league profits (at the very least for shortterm). This would help prevent accelerated costs. The owners didn't "win" last time. They wanted cost certainty but with its acceleration; it isn't certain.
*cap floor based on %. The $value cap floor isn't fair as it means costs for cap floor teams rel to revenue is growing faster than for cap ceiling teams and % wise the cap and floor is moving closer together. This allows "parity" to still be similar %wise no matter where rev is. Could you imagine a cap floor 12mil under the ceiling if each team was pulling in 1bil, it would be pointless.

PS. The capless free market system was having a worse problem with accelerating contract rate so please don't say free market was better. This isn't like a standard business when you have teams that costs rise from bidding against eachother but increase revenues as a total product.


Last edited by garret9: 09-19-2012 at 08:59 AM.
garret9 is offline