View Single Post
12-07-2012, 07:56 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,450
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by bobbyb2009 View Post
Foisted? It was a part of a negotiation. And in my view, in the end, the players won. Of course they are entitled to a share, based on the negotiation. And that is exactly why the owners are negotiating now.
I would say that's an accurate term to use. The NHLPA spent over a year fighting against linkage, even proposing an unlinked cap in Feb. of 2005. Only when Linden and a few other moderates took it upon themselves to bypass Goodenow did they agree to linkage. The players had zero interest in being guaranteed a share of revenues; it was seen as a concession to the owners, for which they got contract rights in return.

Disagree! We must find a system that allows for those franchises to be successful. Or, there will be 150 less jobs in the NHL- at least. And that system must rightly include revenue sharing and a salary structure that allows for a possible ROI for all clubs moving forward. Moving some franchises may be part of the answer, but so is ensuring that salaries are kept under control from overly competitive/wealthy owners and played who wish to squeeze every possible buck out of the system while they can...
I generally agree, but the salary issues are already largely agreed upon by both sides. Contract rights, which have little to do with the viability of low revenue teams, are all that's left and both sides have agreed to do away with retirement deals.

Regardless, teams like Columbus and Phoenix are not going to generate a positive ROI under the next CBA without a whack of revenue sharing. The NHL currently has the most impotent revenue sharing among the big 4 sports and that's a big reason why there are so many teams losing money.

opendoor is offline