View Single Post
11-30-2012, 02:26 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,068
vCash: 500
so mr. wu....

are you saying that 50/50 is not a fair split of revenue between owners and players?

If 50/50 was implemented. The # of teams that lost money would go down substantially. There might be 2 teams left that are losing money at that point.

Throw in the fact that if we didn't have this idiocy going on a presence in those big TV markets eventually pays off in a huge way. If you are on the side that thinks all the owners are making way more money then what forbes says and they are even more profitible.

What's better for the players? More jobs available at the NHL level or less.

Sure seattle would be more profitible then phoenix any day. But that's more roster spots for players, more expansion fees for owners, and greater TV dollars for the league. (if you expand rather then just move the troubled teams) If revenue sharing is expanded some then it works out for everyone quite well.

Also some believe that Phoenix actually can be profitible and that the new arena deal will help in this regard quite a bit.

A lot of the issues are idealogical and not rooted in common sense. The players will lose the season over $182M spread out over a number of years (Fehr's numbers not the leagues) when in player salaries they have already lost more then that this year, and stand to lose substantially more if the season is cancelled. The league is doing *something* right to have grown the revenue's as much as they have.

Fehr's proposal stuck in the caw of the owner's because it essentialy is a fine, we'll go 50-50, but with the outside dollars the players are still getting 57% of 2012 dollars for virtually the life of the CBA. The owners want to get there by year 3 (i.e. the proposal on 2 years of make whole).

vikingGoalie is offline