View Single Post
Old
11-19-2012, 09:35 AM
  #26
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWings19405 View Post
I think both sides are going to be disappointed with this deal, which means it is probably the right one although it has taken forever which is still stupid. But Snider and even the owners that are tiring, aren't going to accept anything without linkage which the NHLPA still has not offered. I just don't see any of them green lighting it without that, even if they are sick of the lockout.
I think linkage is far more important to HF posters than NHL owners.
HFboards has become a cesspool on lockout matters, and the themes that develop in the hfboards echochamber have very little to do with reality.

Where are all these comments about linkage from Gary Bettman and Bill Daly?

Type in LINKAGE and NHL and LOCKOUT in news.google.com. 5 results. None of them have a quote from Bettman or Daly about linkage.


If, right now, the PA said we'll take last year's 50 percent (and then pro-rate it for missed time) ... but as a hard cap figure
(50 percent of 3.3 billion = 1.6 billion and for this year a little smaller for the smaller schedule)
And then ask for annual 2.5 percent raises...

The owners would be all over it.

Owners are professional risk takers. They'd take the risk that revenues will grow by more than 2.5 percent a year.

Hfboard posters, who aren't professional risk takers, are trying to construct some universe where the owners take no risks --- and mistakenly believe that linking salaries to revenues is a way to reduce risk.

But we've seen over 7 years that the opposite can be true.
There are teams losing money because the cap/floor have risen too fast because revenues are rising fast.

Had the owners accepted Goodenow's delinked offer of a straight $48M cap instead of linking salaries to revenue, how many NHL owners would be losing money right now?

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote