View Single Post
11-12-2012, 03:54 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Habs View Post
You are actually wrong, this can't be applied to all 'high-end' talent unions. Most labour unions are a set hourly rate, they don't get a piece of the pie when we bid a job, for example
People, including the NHL, do not want the NHLPA to act like "most unions". Most unions do not link salaries to revenues; most unions have set wage increases, year-to-year, which once negotiated are largely independent of how "well" the company does. The NHLPA tried that, proposing 2%, 3% and 4% raises, de-linking their salaries from revenues.

People freaked out.

I'm not entirely sure why, to be honest with you. Personally I have always thought that in the absence of 100% revenue sharing "linkage" was an artificial concept anyways. The Montreal Canadiens do not give the players 57% of their revenues anymore than the Phoenix Coyotes do. Linkage, in my opinion, causes more problems than it is worth, for the very reasons everybody here keeps talking about - some teams make a lot more than others. So unless you are willing to balance out things on that end, through revenue sharing, you are always going to have this huge disparity and it's always going to cause a problem. I would think it would be much better to go with a set an -x-% raise for the next 10 years and live and die that way. Then and only then would you have true cost certainty.

JohnnyReb is offline