The Lockout Thread UPD 1/6 - framework of new CBA agreed to
View Single Post
11-19-2012, 12:47 PM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Napa Valley, CA
Originally Posted by
The expired CBA did create and make worse welfare cases. The sharing itself does not create them. The cap floor enforces spending of money that teams may not have. Rev share can help the product to be more competitive (balanced) leaguewide. Less teams that are perennial basket cases.
Couple of things. Part of the problem for low rev teams is that the floor is rising faster than league growth. They had the cap range as static so that the lower end of the range by the previous CBA was going to accelerate faster than league growth. Without an increase of rev share or a change in the ranging system, the low rev teams had two strikes against them. The NHL redistributes 1/3 the amount by percentage of the next lowest sharing league of the big 4. That isn't close. The net profit for the league is well below by percentage of all of the other 3 of the big 4.
The NHL players receive 14% more of the total revenue of the league than the next closest league distributes to their players.
Top this off with a low rev team wanting to improve its lot. It has to spend yet more for better players to be better able to compete to draw fans. Vicious cycle. Major kudos to low rev teams who succeed despite the odds stacked against them. That isn't just success, it is a miracle.
One main issue is that the PA recognizes the state of low rev teams but they are violently and unalterably opposed to giving another windfall to high rev teams to create a higher trickle to the low rev markets. The last CBA was among other things effectively a revenue transfer from low rev teams to high rev teams by capping the expenses of high rev teams and enforcing higher expenses on low rev teams. The last CBA was a windfall for the big guys.
The mechanism of the last CBA gave pay increases to all but the first tier of players if you divide skills into 4 tiers. The top tier took it in the neck. The proposals from both sides seem to aim to increase the relative pay of the top tier.
The highlighted stat is a good one that I hadn't seen. Its consistent with my thinking that the players are getting a good deal on the whole and missed a chance to negotiate off the platform the League advanced at 50/50 share of revenues.
Yes - it takes two to negotiate so there is always blame to share, but effective negotiating also recognizes when you have a 'good enough' deal from which to work. Feher missed out on a good opportunity in my mind.
Hoping we haven't lost the season but it sure is looking like it.
The Best Sports Team in the Bay Area for 20 Years
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by WineShark