Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
12-02-2012, 09:30 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
Definately more. But if you're asking the players to go to 50/50 plus contract limits, signing bonus changes, etc. then you're going to have to give something in return. I see the aforementioned revenue sharing plan as a big step in that direction.
That's the way I see it.
The players get 76% of HRR in a free market, but with a lower percentage and more parity, the game probably does better, grows faster, and they get a smaller slice of a bigger pie.
It works out for the players: up to a point. If the players are going to make sacrifice to invest in the game, i.e. if they're taking the
of taking 50% when they could get 76% in a free market, than the owners should invest in parity as well.
Right now, the owners are asking the players to lose a cumulative 240 million in annual revenue per year (assuming 3.3 billion in total annual hockey-related revenue), even though they themselves only want to contribute 40 million more per year in revenue sharing. That is ridiculous -- 86% of the concessions are expected to come from the players !!!
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion