View Single Post
01-04-2013, 08:48 AM
Registered User
Pepper's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
I'm just saying that there are lots of people who think 50/50 is somehow magically equitable. But the owners are proposing 50/50 of HRR, which is not the same. The definition of HRR was initially in question, then settled, then in question then settled and now in question again.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. HRR definitions have been agreed to a long time ago, basicly it's the same it was in the last CBA. PA had the chance to go through the numbers in the summer and the only issue they raised was expansion fees. HRR definitions are not in question at the moment (and haven't been in some time).

So concrete examples please.

Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If you want an example, if the players are expected to clean up the mess the Owens made with the weak sister teams, then why don't they get a cut of expansion fees? Even with the potential for possible future expansion, I dont think this is what is up for debate, but it seems that the players and owners do not have a fixed definition of what HRR is.
What? Who is Owens? What mess is the players expected to clean up?

In the case of expansion, players get their cut. They get 23 new jobs per expansion team.

Why on earth should they get 50% of the expansion fee? It's not revenue.

Should the owners get 50% of the personal sponsorshipdeals players sign? That would be only fair since it's hockey related revenue players are currently getting but not sharing any of it with owners.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote