So then go for 7 years? Or work it out with the Union. Like I said, going from unlimited to 5 years is a huge concession by the players and not the only way to fix these problems.
They probably would go down to 7 years if the NHLPA was willing to discuss or negotiate it. You don't start on your ending number.
And yes, putting a limit is the only way to fix this problem.
The salary cap does artificially restrict the players earning potential. Prior to the cap the players took home roughly 70% of all revenues, which is most certainly a tad silly, none the less even 57% is significantly less than that.
Ahh...nice little spin, however the players salaries have also gone from 1.4 to 2.4 million average.....so they havn't been suffering that much.
So then go for 7 years? Or work it out with the Union. Like I said, going from unlimited to 5 years is a huge concession by the players and not the only way to fix these problems.
When you negotiate, do you always start off with your best offer?
The NHL makes it sound like the NHLPA is refusing to discuss these topics.
Really? Because there's a video of Daly saying that both sides spoke about the contracting issues and that both sides explained their position on the matter and why they felt the way they did about it....doesn't really sound like the league is saying that the PA is refusing to discuss these topics. However, the league is saying that they aren't showing a willingness to move at all in the league's direction regarding these issues. That is something different.
And for the record, the NHL releases information about the happenings with the PA that the PA conveniently don't mention to the public. The PA releases information about the happenings with the NHL that the NHL conveniently doesn't mention to the public. The moral is that when either side addresses anything, they only tell you what they want you to hear and not all there is to tell.
I'm not editorializing. The purpose of a cap system is to artificially restrict player salaries, period.
It also helps players even though they probably don't want to admit it - especially with the cap floor in the picture. How many teams would drop their pay rolls to Miami Marlins levels without that floor?
And who is being restricted by a $70 million cap? That's $3Million/player? A $59Million cap (Roughly 2010 numbers - which is where the new cap is probably going to settle for the first part of the CBA) is still $2.6Million/player on a 23 player roster.
Or teams could have folded, and the growth of the league stunted...
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Just because we ended up with a cap, and the league is slightly better off because of it doesn't mean a cap system is necessarily gods gift to hockey...as illustrated by the situation we are in now.
I don't think anyone is really interested in destroying this game. I also don't think either side is necessarily trying to save it.
It also helps players even though they probably don't want to admit it - especially with the cap floor in the picture. How many teams would drop their pay rolls to Miami Marlins levels without that floor?
And who is being restricted by a $70 million cap? That's $3Million/player?
Presumably the same number as when the players managed 70% of league revenues.
I'm not editorializing. The purpose of a cap system is to artificially restrict player salaries, period.
The goal of the cap was to link players' salaries to league revenues. Revenues have grown exponentially, as such, the players' share has risen accordingly to 57% (or over $1.8 billion in dollars).
It doesn't take a lawyer or statistician to explain that the more profitable the owners are and the more economically viable the league is, the more likely it is for players to earn more money. If there is more money being earned by the league, that's going to mean more dollars being spent towards players and upgrades, which results in better working conditions for the players.
But they don't seem to grasp that and prefer to lose their paychecks just so that they don't give up a year of ELCs or arbitration or free agency. And they're above the NFL and NBA to accept a 50-50 split or "partnership" as they like to call it.
Sharks players (plus two ex-Sharks including a current Islander) skate four times/week at Sharks Ice. They pay for their ice (slightly offset by the $$ paid by the pick up players who skate with them).
And I doubt the deal, when it is reached will be for 5 years. 5 years is simply the NBA model. I'm fairly confident the NHL will budge on its stances on contracting rights once the NHLPA budged on its delinked proposals.
Once the NHL lightens its stance on the linked cap, the NHLPA will budge on contracting issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin
They probably would go down to 7 years if the NHLPA was willing to discuss or negotiate it. You don't start on your ending number.
And yes, putting a limit is the only way to fix this problem.
No, it's not. You can make players pay some of the cost of insuring longer term deals or many other things smarter people than I can figure out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meedle
When you negotiate, do you always start off with your best offer?
No but I find working with the other side, avoiding offending them with lowball offers is the best way to go. I try and make people want to give me a deal not piss them off so they hate my guts.
Presumably the same number as when the players managed 70% of league revenues.
... which is the same time the avg salary was half of what it is now.
The cap does have an affect on increasing revenues because with some semblance of parity in the league, there are 82 games a fan wants to watch each year instead of 20 games against the few teams who have all the league's star players.
I'm not editorializing. The purpose of a cap system is to artificially restrict player salaries, period.
The league minimum salary artificially keeps salaries higher than they might be. The salary floor artificially keeps salaries higher than they might be.
