View Single Post
01-04-2013, 09:32 AM
Registered User
Pepper's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,532
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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.
You're right, there was a change in HRR definition in one of NHL's proposals last week and NHLPA didn't notice it at first (it took them a week) but when NHLPA objected, it was agreed to keep the same.

Friedman speculated that Fehr's foul mood was as much about PA's lawyers missing it as it was NHL proposing it.

Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
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.
Expansion is not revenue, it's one-time investment by outside investor (new team owner), you can view it as NHL issuing new shares to the new owner, i.e. it's a capital injection instead of revenue.

And NHL is doing just that, fixing the problems that most of the markets have. Sadly for the players it starts with the biggest expense which is player salaries. That's exactly what any business would do.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote