Who's side are you on if you were forced to pick sides? The owners? ... or the NHLPA?
View Single Post
10-05-2012, 05:38 PM
Join Date: Mar 2007
Originally Posted by
I support the players, with a caveat.
I think the players are, and will be, willing to move to a 50-50 revenue sharing split. However the owners want that split to occur next year, as opposed to phasing it in over a couple of years. Which means that everybody that has a valid contract as of now, including all those players who signed just this past summer, will not get paid the full value of their contracts. They'll have to take a paycut, in other words. I read somewhere that the owners handed out close to one billion worth of contracts this summer alone. To me it's bad faith negotiating to tell somebody that you are going to pay them a certain amount, and then less than three months later tell them that they are making too much and you're not going to honor their contract.
Which brings me to another point; the league, as a whole, is supposedly profitable. Yes, the profits are centered in a few teams, but still, as a whole it supposedly made more money than it lost. Which again, says to me that the players shouldn't have to take a pay cut. How would you like if it you were working in the Montreal branch of a company, and your boss came up to you and said the following;
"Johnny, I know the Montreal branch made huge sales last year, and we were able to make a $22 million profit in this branch alone, but the Phoenix office did not do so well (who knew they didn't need portable heaters down there??), and they lost $2 million. Sure, the company as a whole still made a profit, but we need everybody in the Montreal branch to take a 10-15% paycut beginning next year.
I know I wouldn't be too happy about it, and even less so once I found out that my company was STILL going to try to sell heaters in Phoenix, AND they weren't actually going to give any of that Montreal pay-cut money to the Phoenix branch. Instead it was going to be used to give the Montreal VP a nice, big fat raise.
Now the caveat; the players have to be willing to eventually come down to 50%. I don't know the math, but let's assume that at 54%
everybody makes the money that their contract says they should make. So next year drop to 54%. Now the year after, drop to 52%, or whatever it is to ensure that everybody still gets their agreed-upon contracts, with whoever is up for a new contract forced to take a smaller deal. Then 51%, then 50%. Do it that way, and everybody's contracts are honored, and eventually the league gets down to the 50% they say they need to get down. The league isn't about to go under, it can survive 2-3 more years making less than 50%, especially knowing they will get there eventually. If the players are not willing to accept that, then I revoke my support of them. But right now they have it.
Bam. This, exactly.
Originally Posted by
im pretty sure the escrow rules in place now only apply to regular season revenues.
I'm pretty sure the opposite is true, that playoff revenue is considered part of HRR. If it is not, that should be another huge issue.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Roulin