View Single Post
11-14-2012, 10:00 AM
Registered User
Ginu's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,554
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
Well considering the league has made every concession they pretty much can on the way to 50/50, covering make whole, lowering elc years, establishing moderation for discipline, increasing revenue sharing, etc and Fehr hasn't backed off a delinked cap with guaranteed increases built in...were not gonna have hockey this year.
Just because league offered something completely ridiculous and then offered something a little better doesn't make that a concession. I can say I'll give you a penny for your car and because I offer you $1,000 for a $5,000 car, I've given a concession?

If the owners want the players to go down to 50% of revenue, covering their salaries on their way there isn't a concession. A concession in this CBA negotiation is something the owners give the players. Saying drop your salaries 12% but we'll let you do that slower than requesting it immediately isn't a concession. Please check the definition of concession.

Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
It comes down to this. The current system doesn't allow enough teams to break even. Even teams like minny and Pitt in great markets with new arenas and great leases need several rounds of playoff revenue or to spend several mil below the cap to break even. The league NEEDS a system that allows more teams to cover costs during the regular season, especially if they intend on increasing revenue sharing past 150 mil. Reducing what is by far the largest and fastest increasing cost is the easiest and most logical thing, employee/player salaries. Chances are teams utilities, taxes, and leases didnt increase 80% like player costs did the past 7 years.
I'll give you that the current system doesn't work for these teams. But both the league and the players have to work together to make sure that the league is sustainable in the markets that they've chosen to be in. The league selected those markets and are asking the players to compensate the owners for poor league choices. I agree that reducing your biggest expense is the easiest way of fixing it but the league is exacerbating the problem with five year contract limits and the other player contracting issues. Those aren't necessary beyond what fixes cap circumvention. They're both talking revenue sharing now and it must be a linked 50-50, but the markets that the league has decided to put teams in has contributed to the league's financial position. And these additional CBA complications are demands by the league.

Originally Posted by sina220 View Post
The system fehr is proposing, however, aims to change the entire structure of money division. It plans to use fuzzy things like projections and estimated growth to establish guaranteed figures each year for the players before total revenue is even known. It also includes automatic % increases in the players share that have no basis in real numbers, but instead use projections for the upcoming years before the fact. It also only approaches a true 50/50 split in years where the projections for revenue are much higher than they should be. It will always be harder, if not impossible, for owners to get 50% in this system than the players. And it plans to increase revenue sharing towards the 200 mil mark which is essentially the entire operating income of the top 8-10 teams. Think mtl, nyr, tor, etc are willing to fork, basically, their WHOLE profit to revenue sharing, in a system that sees players still get a majority of revenue and guaranteed raises? Ya, thats how dumb the nhlpa thinks you are.

Getting the owners more money is BY FAR the most important thing in all of this. A league that is widely profitable benefits everyone, including the players in the long run. A profitable league doesn't see teams like Dallas, atl, stl, phx, NJ, Tampa, etc sit on the market or look for investors for over a year. If more teams made money outside investment would climb. The stability of many teams could be solidified with one or two more investors, but smart men dont invest in losers. And losers is what this current system, and the nhlpas, will produce. The average payroll per team last year was 59.2 mil with 12 teams spending at or below that number and 18 over. A hrr % split and cap number that work out to roughly that max cap is about whats sustainable. And wouldn't you know in the leagues latest proposal the cap would be 59.9 mil in 13/14. The league understands its problems and is working within itself. The nhlpa is trying to get the most for itself regardless of consequence or health of the league. They dont care what kinda pie it is as long as they get the biggest piece.
The part I agree with you on is it should be a linked 50-50. But don't be fooled by these concessions you speak of. Concessions are things that you don't benefit from that the other party does.

Ginu is offline   Reply With Quote