View Single Post
Old
10-27-2012, 02:13 PM
  #98
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,612
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It's not just about what you or I call fair. It's against a backdrop of record revenues where players were promised a range of 54-57% IF revenues grew. The carrot was revenue growth. Implicit in that then must be that if revenues grow, so can the players' share since the teams would be better off with higher revenues than lower revenues.

What changed?
There was a gross miscalculation on the owner's part of where the revenue growth would come from. I think everyone has recognized that, a huge mistake by the owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If you say the revenue growth was uneven, I think the PA has accepted that point, suggesting targeted revenue sharing, taking what they agree to give back in terms of future share of the pie and directing it to the weaker teams. They don't feel they should take a cut so the Leafs can pocket even more money, for example.

It's not an unreasonable suggestion if the reason for taking the money back is indeed to bolster franchises that need bolstering.
Yet the NHLPA's offers have barely included more revenue sharing than the NHL's offers, from what I have seen. They like to use this as a talking point, but it doesn't seem their actions have reflected that. Unless I am misinformed, it seems like both sides have proposed increased revenue sharing, and the PA has been just a bit higher, not major differences there.

Holden Caulfield is offline