Lockout Thread II
View Single Post
11-16-2012, 01:22 PM
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sweden and Slovenia
Originally Posted by
I believe that is theoretical money that the players are offering as concessions by asking for a lower salary increase than they expect the overall league revenue to grow. Under the assumption that the salary the players would have been paid had the CBA stayed the same – and the league would continue to grow at either 5 or 7 per cent per year. I forget.
So, based on the assumption on the NHLPA getting 57% of the leagues revenue (including the 5-7 per cent growth per year) over the timespan of the proposed new CBA the players have according to Fehr offered to reduce that theoretical number by ”about a billion dollars” over the timespan of that new CBA.
Since the last CBA, which actually turned out extremely well for the players, players and league has worked together to make the league grow financially. Now, they are working together to destroy a lot of what was gained. The two sides are battling over who gets the most of the fans money. Both sides, players and owners, are going to lose this battle. The players will be hurting the most. A lot of the teams would be losing money by having a season. So, there should be a greater incentive for the players to find a solution. But they're not going to find it whining to the press.
In a way – the fans are the (financial) winners in this CBA.
It stuns me that they can’t see the damage they’re doing. The deal was right there in front of their face had they sought a solution. The owners clearly were looking for a 50-50 split with that original proposal. That is not unreasonable. How did they not do a deal already.
Well I had to plow through some of the earlier pages to get a grip of this mess. Now thanks to you I see where the "smoke and mirrors" came from.
I'm starting to worry about the future for this sport... and I blame mostly the NHLPA they were digging in for this war and they started it with getting rid of the Goodknow...Goodlove Goodwhatever his name was guy.
A last question because I believe I've got that one wrong somewhere along the road. The make whole proposal was from the NHL to the players to pay back some of their revenue loss all based on future revenue??? Yes? ( that Sounds just weird and can't be right)
...and thanks for the clarifying so far.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by alpa