Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-30-2012, 09:32 PM
Join Date: May 2004
Originally Posted by
It is nice to see someone on "the other side" agree that a 50/50 split is fair.
The players produce what the fans want to watch, they are the entertainment we crave. The players do take time and energy to become good enough to be part of the best hockey league in the world. They also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they do deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.
The owners pay every single cost associated with the game and with taking care of ensuring the players CAN play the game and be seen doing it. The owners take all of the financial risks related to the running of the NHL and ensuring that we fans get a great product, the best in the world today. The owners also DO take risks to get to where they are. As such, they also deserve a 50% split of the HRR because of the value they bring to the NHL.
The problem is not that both sides don't recognize these facts. The problem is that the owners want their 50% now since they have received less than 50% for the entirety of the last CBA, and the players refuse to give that 50% split without conditions being met that ensures the split is not actually 50%. It is a dishonest form of negotiation and is the real sticking point. Since everyone knows that 50/50 is fair for both sides based on what each side brings to the table, there really is no way the players should be dragging this out.
No conditions, just an even and fair split of the pie.
Please keep in mind that the HRR being divided is all from the pockets of the owners. The players have never once been asked to include their own HRR (i.e: endorsement money, autograph signings [Ovechkin charges a minimum of $100 per item you want signed!], appearance fees, hockey card fees, sponsorships, etc...) into the total HRR pie, either. Seriously, the HRR being discussed is all owner related. Thus, the owners are the ones who take all of the financial risks involved in running a franchise and should be accorded a 50% share of the HRR. Plain and simple.
I agree with what you're saying but this particular point. I think the owners are trying to find a way to fufill what I think is fair and that is that contracts signed under the old CBA be honored. And I think the contracts signed this summer and right up to and before the lock out especially need upholding. The reason I think this is as you have very thoroughly argued, the owners take on all the financial risk, and they have in signing players to contracts that go beyond the CBA. I think those risk should be taken into account, that is all I'm arguing.
An immediate true drop to 50/50 can't happen if contracts are going to be upheld but there in lies the make whole provision that the owners have put forth, and I think the players have taken the owners offer and have worked with it to come up with a number they feel will work. So I see that as negotiation, but I think at this point owners aren't willing to move from their stance and neither are the players.
Just judging by our discussion here on these boards and the divide between all of our opinions on the matter I think really goes to show just how hard it must be for owners and players to really come to an agreement, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in saying that yes owners assume all financial risk, and yes players assume risk to get to the NHL, yes a 50/50 split is a workable arrangement for HRR, but is it also not reasonable to say that the players will go to 50/50 but previous contracts need to be honored as those contracts were awarded to the players as part of the owners financial risk.
You yourself have said that the players will make back the rollback in a few years time but the same could be said about the owners. It will only take a few years for the growth of the game and the players under contract to have those contracts expire. What it means though is players not under contract in the short term will need to accept less money while the transition period happens. I just don't see the need for current contracts to be rolled back.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Reiher