View Single Post
Old
11-24-2012, 01:57 PM
  #28
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 31,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KINGS17 View Post
Ok, so why isn't Fehr telling them that they have two choices:

1) They can insist on getting paid a higher percentage of revenue than any other major sport, and expect to lose about a 20% of the union members' jobs.

OR

2) They can take a percentage that is more in line with other sports, insist on increased revenue sharing among the owners, and keep most if not all of their jobs.

The charity you are talking about are the jobs of other union members.

No, the NHL has a fixed number of player spots. Roughly 22 per team, plus extras/injury replacements.

The only issue for the union is how that money gets rearranged between them. I know I believe each should get what they can rightfully earn, with as little artificial interference as possible. That puts all players on the same playing field. If you're not Crosby, why would you think he should make less so you should make more? (You may want that to be the case, but that doesn't make it right.)

As for #2, I like billybudd's reply to your other post on the same vein, so I won't reinvent the wheel here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
I don't know about that second paragraph. The raw percentage of some arbitrary net is neither sustainable nor unsustainable on its own no matter what the percentage. Depends on what other factors do.

As a hypothetical, if the NHL had 100% revenue sharing, each team would make $8 million per year right now (and that's if you believe the NHL's most pessimistic numbers about its own profits, which I personally don't). That's not unsupportable by any means, particularly while franchise values are also rising. And that dollar value profit only goes down if operating costs outstrip growth. Which means everybody's arena lease (and everything else) would need to increase by about 8% per year before 57% became unsustainable in the long run.

There isn't a lockout because "good lord, 57% is TOO MUCH FOR US TO PAY!!!1" There's a lockout because the owners think they have the leverage to reduce that share and fly the asymmetrical growth albatross 5 years into the western sky.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote