View Single Post
11-13-2012, 05:55 PM
Registered User
DAChampion's Avatar
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,315
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
Would you say the same logic applies to the NHLPA?
I think it's clear that it does.

The winners include the ones with longer careers. If you're expecting a long career, you win from an agreement that includes revenue sharing, because that decreases the odds of another lockout in 5 years.

The losers, I think the biggest losers, are likely to future members of the NHLPA. It's common in these negotiations for current workers to negotiate away the privileges of future workers. So, for example, we might see 5-year ELCs, which would be a transfer of wealth from future players to current players who happen to still be around in the future.

I did not attempt a complete list of winners and losers.

I think if the NHL was more Machiavellian, they might offer to raise the minimum salary to $750,000 or even $1,000,000, and maybe shift the minimum length to 2 years. That's a trivial change for the owners, but it could divide the NHLPA. They could also change the retirement rule which penalizes players older than 35.

ETA: If player share is reduced from 57% but current contracts are honoured, then the biggest winners are whoever has a long-term contract, and the biggest losers are whoever has a short-term contract. However, if revenues grow really fast, cap inflation will lead to salary inflation, and players with current contracts may end up being underpaid, as happened after the last lockout.

Last edited by DAChampion: 11-13-2012 at 06:07 PM.
DAChampion is offline