2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)
View Single Post
11-21-2012, 10:12 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Originally Posted by
Look at those proposals again.
The players' share goes DOWN every season
. The numbers you're quoting are based on the assumption that revenues will increase from season-to-season... Which is a fair assumption, no? Even the league's proposal isn't a request for a standard dollar amount to the players. It's a share as well, that would increase with league revenues JUST like the PA proposal.
If it's not aggressive enough for you (which may be fair), then why? What about the numbers don't work?
I don't believe so MMB. I believe the monies allocated to players salaries increases every year by 1.75%, however if revenue increases at the rate suggested it would mean that their percentage of revenue would actually decrease. They want their 1.88 billion with a 1.75% increase each season regardless of what revenue does.
Mirtle looks a bit more closely at that very proposal right here and talks about just that issue:
Again, the players want their money. They're creatively trying to find a way to make the financials work so that teams aren't losing so much money without cutting player salaries, and in fact increasing player salaries. As Dom mentions they want the owners to foot the bill for the lockout, meaning even more money out of pocket for them with teams already bleeding money.
So players want to increase revenue sharing, but the teams actually making money as few as they are don't want to. Can't really blame a franchise like Toronto for not wanting to have their profits cut into even more considering Rogers/Bell dropped 1.32 billion on the company (yes that included the Raptors, Marlies, and Toronto FC as well). Of course they aren't going to want to pay money to a team like Nashville so that they can go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money on a guy like Shea Weber (what is it, 40 million in the first two years) or so that Carolina can sign Jordan Staal to a 60 million dollar contract.
Other then the teams making actual money not wanting to increase revenue sharing, even if you still managed to convince them too that might help the teams that are losing money now make a small profit, but in many cases that doesn't allow them to spend to the Cap ceiling and still be profitable. They'd be turning a small profit yes (again, guys like Johnny Boychuk would turn a larger profit every season then many teams), but they still wouldn't be able to be competitive salary wise. Look at the teams losing money, look at how close to the cap floor most of those teams play it. Do you want an NHL where certain teams can be taken advantage of because they need to operate with an internal cap limit because the ceiling is too high for them to realistically reach? I don't for reasons stated previously, mainly, it doesn't make for a 30 team competitive league.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Kaoz*