View Single Post
Old
11-18-2012, 05:45 AM
  #88
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsernameWasTaken View Post
re previous CBA - the structure needs to be changed, but even if it didn't work well for the NHL the players' share was what it was under the CBA - that's why i get annoyed at people claiming the players were "greedy" by getting their CBA share.

i agree with you that there shouldn't be an HRR% float - it's better for everyone if the % is fixed.

you're overly optimistic if you think that the "loser teams" will drive down HRR as the "high rollers" drive it up - one of the main NHL objectives is to stop the bleed on the lower end. you're still going to be stuck with TO, MTL, NYR driving the revenue sky high. Toronto's bad b/c there's nothing Leafs Nation won't pay to watch the team...and i think ppl are underestimating the effect the reno on MSG will have at driving up NYR rev.
The players where greedy for asking for what they asked for. It was bad at 54% and then even worse it went up. Now their asking for a fixed share and an increase every year no matter the HRR? but that's besides the point.

1-2 won't drive the HRR so high that other teams can't make a profit. Plus if those teams drive up the HRR then revenue sharing gets increased because revenue sharing is tied to HRR so it would work out in the end.

If there is an issue then more revenue sharing can be worked into the deal without involving the players. The owners had lots to figure out among themselves before even starting to negotiate with the players. Cap issues, what a cap hit would be, back ended contracts and other things so it wasn't just a player v owner issue at first it was an owner v owner issue and they had to work it out there first.

Now that the 50-50 split is agreed I think even the owners know they couldn't go back to the players at that point. For the most part once the 50-50 takes effect most teams with revenue sharing would be fine, most teams who lost money last year only lost a few million and with lower wages and increased sharing then that should take care of it. Yes there might be a team or two left that even with theses changes would still be in trouble and the league would have to figure it out there but most leagues have 1-2 teams with issues. As long as 90% of the league isn't losing money then the league is fine, but when a large part of the league is then it's an issue.

Again most teams are losing much money, 5 million is a ton of cash but in the scheme of things it's not much, but it's still a loss and you can't tell a majority of your ownership to eat the loss and move on. You have to change the structure of the league and that's what there doing.

Again know what little I know I do think there is a # out there of cap and revenue sharing that will work for most of the league. Now it's down to when, how to get to 50-50, I think a immediate drop with a full owner covered "Make whole" is the best and contractual contractions. I think the owners went to harsh on the restrictions but I do think there should be, even as a Hawk fan with a few of them now I never liked the front end loaded 13 year deals to keep cap hits low it was a way to cheat the system. I think both sides need to give a little and a deal can be worked out. Hopefully this NHLPA called meeting monday has the players giving a counter offer to the leagues offer and we can find a middle ground that not only leaves both sides feeling ok with the situation but that works for years and years to come.

Sir Psycho T is offline   Reply With Quote