Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV
View Single Post
11-20-2012, 09:46 AM
Join Date: Feb 2002
Originally Posted by
So revenue sharing wasn't a give? Make whole is a pretty damn big concession too. 50/50 had to happen, that's a fact of life in professional sports in north america in 2012. The landing is as soft as it is going to get.
I don't see TAKE TAKE here...
The contracts are going to be paid in full and the League will be healthy long term at 50/50. This is a good thing for the players too, despite what they are saying. Less share of the pie has proven to not mean lower salaries in the long run.
Once the players accept reality of 50/50, the contract issues will be easily solved. At the end of the day the owners only need the circumvention loophole closed, which again is better for everyone.
Make whole, seriously?
You mean like the concession the Owners are making to actually pay the players their guaranteed contracts that they agreed to previously, instead of asking for discounts on current deals. Wow what a great gesture on their part to pay what they agreed to. NHLPA already have those signed binding legal contracts today, before the lockout occurred, simply getting paid what is owed is not a concession on the Owners part to their benefit.
Revenue sharing is already also in the current CBA, that exists today where rich teams help of the poorer teams located in small/non traditional hockey markets that Bettman placed there and now need help staying alive.. NHLPA had no part of deciding when or where a franchise is located, neither do they get a % cut of the franchise fees. Owners each divide up those $$ among themselves. The NHLPA benefit in successful revenue sharing system is to avoid another future lockout and from the billionaire owners crying "poor me", and demanding the players are responsible for keeping franchise afloat. NHLPA would be more than happy to see weak NHL markets moved to stronger ones in order to sustain greater profitability in regions that can support hockey teams.
Sure 50/50 HRR split makes sense as it meets in the middle of equal partnership. NHLPA is willing to reduce their cut accordingly as a concession to meet in the middle.. They currently had 57% so going to 50% is not a benefit but large concession from their side.
As far as all these ridiculous individual rights demands like contract length and earning potential, etc that the NHL is demanding. Why is it any of their business how the NHLPA decides to divide their own 50% portion of HRR among the players themselves.. If the NHLPA is okay with Sidney Crosby on a 10 year deal and Tim Connolly on a 2 year deal at their current rates of pay, then how does that matter to the owners that pay them as its all apart of the agreed upon the new 50% that they would be entitled to.
Signature: “If you think there’s no pain coming, there’s pain coming,”.. Mike Babcock
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Mess