Around the NHL XIX | Back in action! | Next Game: @ Jets, 3pm
View Single Post
12-09-2012, 01:24 PM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Originally Posted by
What hurts the owners most isn't how much the players make, though. The real problem is systemic; they've tied franchise costs to the average franchise's revenue without considering that the extreme asymmetrical distribution of revenue across franchises puts most franchises well below this calculated average. Getting the players down to 50% of HRR doesn't change that systemic problem. It treats the symptoms of that problem (teams bleeding money), but it doesn't solve it. The owners could substantially alleviate the problem by simply redistributing their own revenues at no expense to the players.
So while it is true that the hockey operations of many franchises are bleeding, it isn't because every team has one guy making $1.75M/yr that the franchise can't afford.
I use $1.75M/yr because that's approximately how much the Make Whole ($211M according to Bob McKenzie) costs each franchise per year over four years.
The only bit I think the owners should concede to though is a revenue sharing agreement that evens out thing such that a % of salary to HRR is viable for all teams.
Obviously it needs to be such that there's incentive to strive to be at the top of the pile (and the fact that support staff costs aren't part of the % would be part of it). Also would need to be cleaner accounting from owners who own their buildings, etc.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Caeldan