View Single Post
11-20-2012, 07:51 PM
Ima Krejciist.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Thank you! That's what I've been looking for.

To all the people complaining about how the players have been negotiating: Tell me where the flaws lie in these proposals (specifically the third, which I see as being the strongest).

What concerns me is the unknown... What have the players asked for in return for a smaller cut?
Because many teams in the NHL already aren't turning a profit and that proposal see's the players share increase every single year, from 1.88 billion now to 2.145 billion in 2016-2017. It assumes a rate of growth in revenues that may or may not be realistic, and really does nothing to alleviate the issues currently plaguing bottom tier teams

Revenue sharing is the players solution, which is easy for them to suggest because it involves them losing no money. Forget for one second that you're telling the group that just paid 1.32 billion for a franchise that you need to drastically cut into their profits in order to prop up teams worth a 20th of the value so they can spend 70 million each year on their players as well. Essentially what you have are the owners telling the players "as it stands right now this business isn't profitable and in order to fix that and make it profitable for all teams we need to lower salaries to a more reasonable level". Then you have players saying "No, we want the teams actually making money (who just so happen to be the same teams who gouge their fans at the gates) to share their profits instead because we like making lots and lots of money". This is the idea some fans support? Then you have guys like Shea Weber signing an offer sheet for a sum that would likely be able to buy him the Nashville Predators franchise come the end of the contract. Not hard to see why owners have an issue. Matt Stajan made more money then 20 some NHL franchises last year.

Kaoz* is offline