View Single Post
12-13-2012, 08:46 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,146
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
My argument works with both numbers and percentages.

The players are giving up ~230 million/year, and the owners are transferring 40 million/year.

If you want to go by percentages, the player concession is ~7% of league revenue or ~13% of the players' share, and the owner concession is ~1% of league revenue or ~2% of the owners' share.

There is no loss from the owners. If Jeremy Jacobs pays out 10 million dollars less in salaries and pays out 4 million dollars more in revenue sharing then he is losing nothing. He is gaining 6 million/year. That's right -- he's not losing anything whatsoever.

As an aside, you argue that the players should take losses as they're already well-paid, will still be well-paid, and it's in the long-term interests of the game. Do you also think that the owners of the six or seven most profitable franchises (NYR, TML, Habs, Flyers, Canucks, Oilers, Bruins) should be willing to take somewhat smaller profits in the short-term as well, or do you think that only players should take losses?

IMO, it would be good for the game if Toronto, etc saw a small decrease in profits, with the money used to invest in the league. It would also be good for labor relations.
Listen, one thing we do agree on is that there should be better revenue sharing. I have said that in previous posts. I just think the make whole crap is just crap. Both sides knew what they were doing when signing long term inflated contracts. BOTH sides. Do you really think the agents weren't trying to squeeze extra out of the owners without knowing that a rollback would be part of the negotiations? Please, agents are NOT stupid. Everyone who watched the last lockout knew that rollbacks were going to be asked for.

I do wish there would be more revenue sharing. I hope it happens. I also think the players are being foolish by not signing the latest offer. Very simple.

Drydenwasthebest is offline