View Single Post
Old
11-12-2012, 01:14 PM
  #120
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
It's the PA that proposed the extent of the revenue sharing for the good of the league. Sure they haven't made it 40-50% but at least they said what the NHL put originally wasn't enough. The fact that the NHL's original proposal frowned on revenue sharing shows me who's serious about fixing the league, or at least taking this more seriously. Next CBA if the revenue sharing amount has to be increased then that'll be the important point.

And yes, market freedom. You need players and teams to be able to choose each other without clauses that cap the market. The way the NHL is proposing it you might as well create a computer program that allocates UFA players to teams based on the max salary (max years x max cap hit per year). It takes all the life out of UFA Day and we don't need it.
They proposed it for the good of the league or because if the owners give more money to other owners, less money can be taken from the players? Good luck trying to prove the intentions of the players. Their word means very little during a negotiating process. It's astonishing that anyone can argue either side has good intentions for one another. And over the last CBA, RS sharing was calculated based on a percentage. It was not a fixed amount every year which is why the RS portion increased over the span of the last CBA (without player intervention I might add). Increasing RS isn't something that the players masterminded. RS has been increasing in the past, the difference this time around is that restrictions have been dropped and both sides are negotiating a higher fixed amount going into the next season. Regardless of how much money is committed to next season, the RS will always be calculated based on a percentage and not a fixed amount.

And the league didn't frown on RS. Both sides prioritized RS differently to suit their agenda. Owners want to pay players less so RS was a secondary issue that would be use to prop up the difference. Players seemingly want to be paid more so RS was used as a priority issue so that more internal money being shared means less teams struggle to pay player salaries and better chance that players make more money on individual contracts.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote