View Single Post
Old
10-30-2012, 07:00 PM
  #72
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
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%?
I see what you're saying, which makes complete sense.

I kinda left out the second part: the difference between HRR/Median would be offset by an increased percentage of HRR going into revenue sharing.

Since every single year, 15 teams would be above the median (instead of 10 above the average), you'd have more teams paying in to revenue sharing; and the rich teams would be paying even more into revenue sharing based on the increase in RS%.

Every year you'd have 15 teams below the median (instead of 20 below average). With that larger revenue sharing pool, less teams below the midpoint, and those teams being closer to the midpoint, the revenue sharing payments would allow those bottom 15 to get closer to the MIDPOINT, instead of just getting to the floor.

Ideally for the NHL, everyone's at the cap. This could have 10 at the cap, 15+ at the MIDPOINT and very few only at the floor (rebuilding teams).

Obviously, Median won't grow at the same rate as average. But the revenue sharing pool would grow because it's based on pure HRR, and those funds would go further, so more teams would have money and spend more on players.

The players would be getting back what they allow to run through revenue sharing first. The owners would be able to spend more on players, AFTER they secured their financial stability.

The funding would basically come from a little bit more revenue from teams 1-10 in revenues paying a higher percentage into revenue sharing, teams 11-15 paying into revenue sharing instead of simply being exempt because the revenue average was above them; teams 16-30 needing far less revenue sharing than before to meet their financial obligations.


My logical disconnect is are the players actually GETTING their 57% now? And from whom? Because 12 teams can't afford that. The players are upset about loopholes like the Islanders using bonus money to hit the cap but not paying actual dollars because it's impossible for multiple players on their roster to win the Conn Smythe Award.

I think the answer to your question of "Where is the money coming from?" is this: Right now, it's coming from guys like Charles Wang writing an $8 million personal check to cover expenses because the team loses money. And that's what they're trying to stop.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote