View Single Post
09-19-2012, 05:13 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Airdrie
Posts: 694
vCash: 500
Listening to snippets of an interview with Mathieu Schneider from the NHLPA yesterday, he indicated that the NHL and NHLPA has essentially agreed that the definition of HRR is to remain as is from the previous CBA and that the question now is essentially how to split it up.

Previously, as we are all aware the players collectively bargained to get 57% of the HRR. I see this disparity in revenue (versus the NHL's 43%) as fair concession for the rollback (24%) and the acceptance of the salary cap (I call it acceptance regardless of what it was, they signed the CBA).

Splitting the Pie

It's widely assumed that it will be somewhere around a 50/50 split by the time it's all said and done. The owners (GB) claim the current economics don't work yet are somewhat disingenuous signing RFA's and extending others to long term deals, some of which have been questioned as to their dollar amount. For example, Kari Lehtonen getting Kiprussof dollars while not really showing the same sort of productivity (yes, he had a good year) and still having health questions. Kind of slaps their argument in the face but whatever. The players for their part, from what I can understand of their offers to the NHL, have been seeking a way to help with the revenue sharing/luxury tax sort of system rather than truly addressing the NHL's offer(s).

Take aways

There needs to be a way to help the smaller market teams remain viable

Contraction is in no ones best interest, the Players Union does not want to see their membership decrease, GB wants to make the traditional non hockey markets work or relocate them (a difficult proposition)

The HRR, according to what I heard on the radio interview with Schneider is agreed upon.

The players do not want to take a cut to prop up owners that are not running a strong/viable business or making wise decisions (for thier part I am sure the owners don't want that either).


NHL & NHLPA split the revenues 49/49 with 2% of the revenues being held in escrow to serve as revenue sharing for the smaller market teams that do not reach the league average in terms of profit.

There needs to be a contingency to the revenue sharing however. The players don't want to fore go a cent to prop up a bad owner and the NHL cannot afford to through equalization payments at franchises that are poorly run. The players and the NHL need to sit down and draft a set of readily accepted practices of running a franchise to maximize their profitability. In this scope of practices could be marketing, ticket prices, entertainment etc...This may be more difficult than most of the CBA negotiations but I feel some sort of structure needs to be in place. If a franchise follows these practices in scope and is below the league average for profitability, they get topped up out of that 2%. If the franchise is being poorly ran and is outside the scope of the aforementioned practices in its day to day operations, they receive nothing. Anything left over outside of the equailization payments (from the 2% being held in escrow) goes directly to the players union.

How's this for a starting point??

Flame away.

Slatsmsg is offline   Reply With Quote