2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*
View Single Post
09-28-2012, 01:42 PM
I Miss Milstein.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Originally Posted by
This is truly a tough one.
The owners know they can bully the players and that's what they're doing. The irony is, their enemy in this "system" (past CBAs) is not the players/union - it's themselves. The owners are the reason why their costs are out of hand, it's got little to do with % of revenues and everything to do with the supply/demand dynamics created by the CBA with player movements.
Limited free agency causes the demand/supply of difference makers to drive salaries way up. Those salaries are leveraged by agents/players to drive up their own salaries. The market is created NOT by a free market, but by a limited market where supply is constrained (by the CBA rules, in large part) - driving franchises into the red.
It's clear that half the franchises cannot be profitable under these rules.
It's also true that a handful of franchises (Leafs, Rangers) will make a fortune++ no matter what the rules are.
There is a solution that involves SOME revenue sharing and SOME drag on salaries.
I wonder how a tax system might work where a player who is signed to a contract above the league average is subjected to a tax that is redistributed to the other teams in some way.
So, league average annual salary is $1Million - for example.
If Tavares is signed for $6MM/year, then there's a "tax" on the $5MM difference (say 10%) which goes into a revenue share pool, which is then divided among the lower revenue teams in the NHL the following year.
Unless you have a system that allows the poorest teams to compete with the richest teams, with a narrower range of salary from the cap-to-floor, the league will never be a healthy one, with consistently profitable franchises.
Consider this one: if you remove the NYR and Toronto revenues and remove the Phoenix and NYI revenues from consideration, the average goes down, the cap stays lower and salaries are far more manageable (two great earners and two poor earners are removed from the bell curve, so the vast majority of teams are healthier in the past negotiations, correct?)
Maybe the last CBA could have worked better. Maybe something can be seen from both sides to keep everyone happy (save for the Leafs and Rangers).
And I'm fundamentally against the tax. The players earn it, the owners have to keep themselves in check. (call me a capitalist!) How do you allow the league to stay interesting when you punish success? I'll gladly watch poor teams suck if it means better hockey. And our team is poor and has sucked! Give Wang free money for not competing and what is his motivation to compete
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by OlTimeHockey