View Single Post
Old
12-16-2012, 11:59 PM
  #513
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
I actually think the cap is good for the game. The players make less money under a cap in the long-term, but the league grows faster, possibly, maybe. It's a tradeoff.

However, if the owners take the players from 76% to 57% in 2005, then to 50% in 2013, then to 40% in 2018, etc etc then the players don't benefit from that system. It's no longer mutually beneficial, and they should decertify.
How would owners make that justification? Unless industry standards change they have no basis for it.

What is giving owners the will to push to a 50-50 system is that in other leagues owners make 51-52%. Unless NFL owners start making 60%, there isn't a basis for the NHL to do so.

Suggesting otherwise is sensationalism of the Prust "bettman destroyed a nation" variety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post
Good players will get back more than they've lost in a free market. If the owners want the players to take 50% of HRR rather than the 76% they would get in a free market, they have to make it worth their while to make that concession.

The 2005 CBA had several concessions going the other way, the current proposal from the owners has absolutely nothing going the other way. It's a one-way street of concessions.

At some point it follows that it will no longer be in the players self-interest. I'm not sure if that point is at 55%, 50%, or 45% of HRR.


Being an owner (of any business) means keeping the excess value-added of labor's production over their salaries.


Nobody's spending 200 million either way, but,

Yes, spending more money on expenses other than player salaries is a competitive advantage. That's why teams are doing it, and that's why 13 out of 30 teams are unprofitable in spite of the massive concessions from the players (a full 19% of league revenue) in the last CBA.

I really doubt any team was spending 55 million on non-player expenses back in 2004. That's where the concessions from the players want, and that's where the new round of concessions would go.

Notice that drafting quality has improved, why do you think that is? Because more money is put into scouting. Why do you think more money is put into scouting? Because good scouting is more valuable when you have a salary cap.
Would you rather 57% of 3 bil or 50% of 4 bil? That's all there is to it. It helps the game grow. I agree there is limitations to how far the players should give in but I don't consider a 50-50 split doom and gloom for players. I don't consider 5 year max contracts doom either. Few players deserve more. I would cap it at 7 years personally.

Scouting and management help the organization and the players. A lot of money is invested into training facilities, coaches like brisebois and so on. This is a mutually beneficial investment. While it adds to competitiveness it also has a limitation in terms of how effective it would be vs actual players players acquired. Spending 200 mil on development but having 1 mil worth of players does not equal 1 mil of development and 200 mil worth of players. The difference is minimal and essentially is a matter of operational structure and organization more so than direct on ice advantage. The correlation between player salaries spent and team performance is greater than management salaries and team performance.

LyricalLyricist is offline