View Single Post
10-30-2012, 06:07 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,869
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by KevFu View Post
Yeah, but raising the average revenue, meaning more teams need more money. This is why median needs to be adopted: More teams making profits would mean more revenue sharing dollars that would raise the bottom of the league; with average, more profits = higher cap/floor, more teams further in the red.

I don't get why it's a one-way street: If more profits = more revenue sharing; then going to Median would make for more profitable teams, more revenue sharing dollars, more teams SPENDING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SPEND.

And using median might not actually lower the dollars for the NHLPA. Yeah, it's less dollars using median instead of average if you use the same percentage. But why would you use the same percentage?

It was 57% of HRR. The NHL and NHLPA both seem to okay with 50% as long as other conditions apply.

Using 2011 dollars:
50% of HRR using AVG for midpoint = $1,558.5 million to the players
12 teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay into revenue sharing, 10 teams in the middle.

Using 2011 dollars: 53.6% of Adjusted HRR* using MED for midpoint = $1,559.8 million (About the same money).
SIX teams need revenue sharing to hit the floor; eight teams can pay a lot into revenue sharing, 7 teams can pay a little into revenue sharing, nine teams in the middle.

It lowers the amount of revenue sharing NEEDED and creates more revenue sharing to bump up spending on players. Mission Accomplished.
Maybe I'm just tired... but if you're using the median to determine HRR - which I think most will agree is one of the very few truly sustainable cap models (long term). The only way it makes a difference/helps is if it's less money going to the players. Otherwise, where is the money coming from?

Change the % any way you want. 50% of average revenue, or 57% of the median revenue... long term the median is not likely to grow at the same rate as the average revenue growth - which is the whole point of using it (to remove the top/bottom teams from the equation).

That still doesn't matter if Fehr will not accept that model. And he doesn't seem inclined to accept anything that might give the players less than fixed amounts with raises... why would he suddenly want to have HRR redefined to the point where they're losing a few hundred million? Even if it's over a long term - say median at 65/70% (or whatever % means the players shouldn't lose anything) that drops yearly over a 10+ year deal until it reaches ~50-55%?

Riptide is online now   Reply With Quote