View Single Post
01-04-2013, 09:16 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,859
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
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.

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.
Reports are that yesterdays informal talk centered on two things, pension and the definition of hrr. To me that says the definition is not fixed.

And Owens is owners on autocorrect. How is expansion money not revenue? And if they were partners ( they are not) then players personal contracts could be on the table. I agree that if the owners laid claim to personal contracts that would be a reach. I think the expectation that the owners have that it is the responsibility of the players to shore up poorly run teams or teams to in crappy markets is also a reach. If the nhls house is in disorder, the onus to fix it lies with them, not the players.

sandysan is offline   Reply With Quote