HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-31-2012, 11:20 AM
  #376
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
When something called "collective bargaining" was instituted...





So the PA should give into every demand the league has?





Because if the league and the teams are "hurting" as much as you say they are, then meaningful revenue sharing should help alleviate that issue....(and avoid another lockout in 2020).
The PA likes lockouts. If they didn't, they wouldn't want the CBA to be 5 years long.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:22 AM
  #377
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Deserve? That's a strong word, itís hard for me to get on board with the theory that NHL players "deserve" to get every last dollar they can from the owners regardless of what damage it does to the league.

Teachers, fire fighters, and police officers "deserve" more money..... NHL players will get paid millions to play a game regardless, anything more is pure greed.
When was the last time you went on a firefighter/teacher/police officer message board?


Like it or not, the amount of entertainment/enjoyment/passion that the NHL inspires among its fan base goes far beyond just a "game". I can't stress this point enough.

One more point - a salary cap was installed to create more parity in the league and allow those lower revenue teams to keep their stars. It was not installed to benefit the overall financial health of the league. Go ahead and argue with me otherwise....

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:23 AM
  #378
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Because if the league and the teams are "hurting" as much as you say they are, then meaningful revenue sharing should help alleviate that issue....(and avoid another lockout in 2020).
The reality is if you do the math even with a massive revenue sharing program under the last CBA there is no way the 17 teams making profits/breaking even can float the 13 teams losing money. Well unless teams like the Leafs, Canadians and Rangers are cool with sharing most of their operating profits with the rest of the league, which I am sure they are not.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...on:asc_search:

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:24 AM
  #379
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffradio View Post
The PA likes lockouts. If they didn't, they wouldn't want the CBA to be 5 years long.
The PA likes not being allowed to play and make money? Do you know what a lockout means?

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:26 AM
  #380
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
When something called "collective bargaining" was instituted...
Right, but the rhetoric has been about blaming the owners for "locking out" the players and also complaining about the system. There's a reason why they're doing that, to fix the system!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
So the PA should give into every demand the league has?
Hyperbole. League has already given PA many of their demands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Because if the league and the teams are "hurting" as much as you say they are, then meaningful revenue sharing should help alleviate that issue....(and avoid another lockout in 2020).
I posted this before in another thread.

Revenue sharing is a red herring. We haven't heard a peep from the PA ever since the NHL upped revenue sharing numbers in subsequent offers.

If it's not an issue for the PA (and you KNOW they will use anything to grasp leverage), why is it an issue for pro-PA posters to hang their hat on?

Also, nobody dictates how the players individually get to spend their money, so why do the players get to dictate how each team spends their profits? Why don't we do revenue sharing with player salaries - so Crosby revenue shares his earnings with other players?

Other red herrings:
- It's a "lockout", not a "strike", even though Fehr says it's a strike

- PA have agreed to 50-50. Uh, no. Do the math yourself on the offers. Comes out still to over 56% or something. Or just read posts by our resident math wiz mossey3535.

- the "outrageous" first offer from the NHL, welcome to December 2012 plus why did the PA not agree to start negotiations earlier like the NHL asked? The PA declared war by hiring Fehr, rejecting re-alignment and refusing to negotiate a year ago, so that's why we shouldn't be surprised at the first offer. Plus that is exactly the proportion the PA got in the last CBA - 57 to 43! If that was so outrageous then what can you say about the PA getting this in the last CBA? Fair?

- why won't NHL play and negotiate, see history of Fehr plus same question in last point - if the PA wouldn't even start negotiations last year, why would they agree to any deal while playing?

- teams are actually making money and hiding it - really? Any PROOF of this? You are aware that the PA has the right to audit the books and would scream to high heaven if there was any hint of dirtiness? This is probably another reason why the PA doesn't talk about revenue sharing - they know the numbers are NOT there.

- PA have conceded "everything", NHL have conceded "nothing". Nope - it's been posted/re-posted endlessly the list of items that the PA will get in the new deal. These items will up the cost significantly. Plus $300 MILLION make whole which NBA and NFL never got.

- Bettman-demonization. LOTS of Bettman-demonization. "Puck Gary" avatars, anti-Gary tweets/re-tweets, reposting anti-Gary articles which are clearly one-sided when looking at facts. Making fun of everything from his height, his attorney background, he's not a "hockey guy" when he is. Blaming him on Southern expansion even though he did not start it, or for bad markets/bad TV deal/bad everything! Wow, as someone who works for 30 different owners there seems to be a lot of emphasis and full-blown hate on just one guy. It is getting overblown and tired. Not like Fehr has been a saint either, what with the 45-minute "water breaks", being hours late for negotiations, and making offers on napkins without doing the numbers. Oh, and that press conference.

- teams did not have to give players these big contracts. See "collusion", teams' willingness to compete, fan support/backlash. If the system is broken and this is the only time they can fix it, why not do it now?

- any sort of pro-union/anti-owner stance not based on this situation, but from past experience/other situations/other industries. The PA is not a normal, traditional union so this is not a case of evil owners screwing the little guy by paying them low wages and having them work in unsafe or harsh situations. There are lots more examples around the world where workers are being mistreated - this is not one of them. Yet we get the "poor NHL player", who just wants to play hockey while the evil owners are suppressing them. For a group that is still going to get a better deal than the NBA and NFL, that is a major stretch.

- players are the product, I pay to watch specific players, not owners, replacement players. Nope - the teams are the product, not the players. It's what is on the front of the jersey, not the back. Or do you move and change teams everytime your favourite players are traded? If you don't, then isn't that hypocritical? Also, how many people tuned into the games the players play outside the NHL, like the charity games? I know I didn't, and wasn't there word that one or two of them were cancelled because of lack of support? Players come and go but the teams stay. Yesterday's junior players are tomorrow's stars. And today's juniors/replacements will be tomorrow's stars. Does not take long for talent pool to catch up when average NHLer only lasts 4 years.

- players or someone else will start up a competing league and I will watch - really? Where will they play? Do you realize how much money it takes to secure building rights, front staff, plus a whole ton of expenses that NHL owners have to pay for, but the players never have to? Welcome to the real world.

- any sort of pro-contraction stance disguised as anti-owner/pro-PA stance - this is actually a stance that hurts BOTH the PA and the NHL. PA will lose significant jobs and the less NHL players there are, the less the need for a union.

- players are fighting for the future, not money. Why did the PA ask for a 5-year CBA if it's not about money? That doesn't seem very future-oriented or long-term thinking. Why not make a big fuss about ELCs or something for the new players? Why take the extra make whole money and nothing else thank you very much? Why make de-linked offers with guaranteed raises, over and over and over?

- NHL won the last work stoppage (no they didn't - ask yourself which party wants to keep current CBA), and if the PA buckles under now then the NHL will keep taking and taking and taking forever - nope, for a work stoppage to happen, at least one side of the two has to be significantly unhappy with the current deal to stop. If both sides are making money and are happy, there would be no work stoppage. If the majority of owners are making money under a true 50-50 deal, logically would it even make sense for them to support a future work stoppage?

- owners completely wrote the last CBA, they screwed up so they should pay for it. Um, no. See "cap floor", 57 to 43, plus the NHLPA did not completely roll over - they still want to play with the last deal. And if mistakes were made, why can't we ever fix them, at a time when it is the only time (between CBAs) to do so?

- players just want "existing contracts to be honoured". Newsflash - they NEVER got exactly what their contract stipulated 100% because the amount was always subject to actual revenues - something called linkage. So for the players to say that they would no longer be getting what they were promised is disingenuous, as they NEVER got that amount in the first place! Plus, ALL NHL contracts have a clause that they would be subject to changes under new CBAs, so ironically, "honouring" the contracts is actually de-linking the contracts from revenues.

Anything I missed?


Last edited by Scheme: 12-31-2012 at 11:34 AM.
Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:28 AM
  #381
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I think, Yes, it should be. It was a gesture of good faith, something to hopefully satisfy the players for the cuts that were going to have to be made into the contracts they had worked out under the last CBA. Yes, surely it should be a know fact that each new CBA can change the economic dynamics of previously negotiated contracts; but still, the Make Whole is a way for the owners to show that they're willing to take part of the responsibility of for the changes that have to be made. And Yes, it was the players who benefitted (or at least didn't lose) from the last CBA, but still there's the idea of something being taken away.

So again, I totally sided with the owners when they made the Make Whole offer. I do think the second offer increased the Make Whole too much, but I thought the first offer was a bit too little. Something in between the two is about right.
I did not see it as a gesture at all. I see it as slap in the face. the fact that it was even considered to not pay full is a sham.

Fantom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:33 AM
  #382
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
One more point - a salary cap was installed to create more parity in the league and allow those lower revenue teams to keep their stars. It was not installed to benefit the overall financial health of the league. Go ahead and argue with me otherwise....
Haha; because league parity, thriving NHL teams in large North American (non-traditional hockey markets), and 30 financially viable NHL teams is in no way a benefit to the overall financial health of the league. All of which are necessary to land a national TV deal on par with the other major sports in North America, also in no way a benefit to the overall financial health of the league.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:35 AM
  #383
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I did not see it as a gesture at all. I see it as slap in the face. the fact that it was even considered to not pay full is a sham.
Thanks for your post - I'm adding it into my bigger post about common misconceptions.

The players NEVER got exactly what their contract stipulated 100% because the amount was always subject to actual revenues - something called linkage. So for the players to say that they would no longer be getting what they were promised is disingenuous, as they NEVER got that amount in the first place!

Plus, ALL NHL contracts have a clause that they would be subject to changes under new CBAs, so ironically, "honouring" the contracts with that "make whole" is actually de-linking the contracts from revenues. You could argue that that is actually overpaying the players.

To see that the players are getting a huge freebie (which the owners never had to give them), just look at the NBAPA. Realized the economic situation, went to 50-50 without any tricks, and without needing a "make whole".


Last edited by Scheme: 12-31-2012 at 11:42 AM.
Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:38 AM
  #384
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Like it or not, the amount of entertainment/enjoyment/passion that the NHL inspires among its fan base goes far beyond just a "game". I can't stress this point enough.
There is no doubt that the NHL's core fan base in passionate about the game but unfortunately in professional sports the target audience is NEVER the core fan base because they will always be fans. It's the casual fan that the NHL, MLB, NFL, and MLB seek out and compete for and it will always be that way because they offer the opportunity for growth and new revenue. When businesses make new marketing plans they do not go out and target existing customers and the same is true with professional sports.

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:41 AM
  #385
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Cry me a river. These franchises are toys to the clowns. This is just a classic case of those with a lot trying to take from those with less and it will never end.
Just take a moment and seriously consider the implications of what your post suggests.

1) Let's subtract these "clowns" from the picture. Where then is the League?

2) The only money being taken from the players is the money that the details of the last CBA outlined for them to receive in the contracts that were negotiated then. That CBA has ended and the specifics outlined in it ended with it. This is not a case of robbing from the poor to pay the rich.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:43 AM
  #386
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I did not see it as a gesture at all. I see it as slap in the face. the fact that it was even considered to not pay full is a sham.
Fine, then the owners can forget 50/50 for the next 15 years, because it'll take something like that just to get to 50/50.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:45 AM
  #387
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The reality is if you do the math even with a massive revenue sharing program under the last CBA there is no way the 17 teams making profits/breaking even can float the 13 teams losing money. Well unless teams like the Leafs, Canadians and Rangers are cool with sharing most of their operating profits with the rest of the league, which I am sure they are not.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations...on:asc_search:
Did you actually crunch the numbers on this forbes article? Let's just assume it isn't full of crap (how do they know how to factor in merchandise sales and related stadium revenues not considered part of HRR?) - the combined operating income (and this is apparently net of debt service payments) of all 30 teams was $250M last season. Remove the Leafs, Habs, Rangers and its 45M - still more than enough to share with the rest of the league.

The reality is the system would be a lot more effective if it was a penalized luxury tax system - not something tied to HRR like a hard salary cap. Ask any economist how artificial quotas work on the marketplace in the long run....

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:49 AM
  #388
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
The PA likes not being allowed to play and make money? Do you know what a lockout means?
Yes, but I don't know why the PA hates 10 year CBA's that fans are dieing for.

stuffradio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:51 AM
  #389
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Right, but the rhetoric has been about blaming the owners for "locking out" the players and also complaining about the system. There's a reason why they're doing that, to fix the system!



Hyperbole. League has already given PA many of their demands.



I posted this before in another thread.

Revenue sharing is a red herring. We haven't heard a peep from the PA ever since the NHL upped revenue sharing numbers in subsequent offers.

If it's not an issue for the PA (and you KNOW they will use anything to grasp leverage), why is it an issue for pro-PA posters to hang their hat on?

Also, nobody dictates how the players individually get to spend their money, so why do the players get to dictate how each team spends their profits? Why don't we do revenue sharing with player salaries - so Crosby revenue shares his earnings with other players?

Other red herrings:
- It's a "lockout", not a "strike", even though Fehr says it's a strike

Anything I missed?
Yes - everything. The NHL pays the players money individually on set contracts. So they already set the terms on how much each player makes. The best players make the most. Great system. If the NHL wants to say that it needs a better system so all teams are healthy, the PA is obviously going to come up with alternative ways to make those teams healthy.

If revenue sharing is no longer an issue, it probably is because the NHL and PA have gotten onto the same page about it - which makes it even more baffling that you think it shouldn't be discussed.

When did Donald Fehr call it a strike?

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:52 AM
  #390
Tkachuk4MVP
24 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Just take a moment and seriously consider the implications of what your post suggests.

1) Let's subtract these "clowns" from the picture. Where then is the League?

2) The only money being taken from the players is the money that the details of the last CBA outlined for them to receive in the contracts that were negotiated then. That CBA has ended and the specifics outlined in it ended with it.This is not a case of robbing from the poor to pay the rich.


I'm generally pro-NHL, but the whole "the last CBA means nothing" argument bothers me. If that were the case, then why is the cap a given? The last CBA was absolutely the starting point for these new negotiations, to say otherwise is ignoring the facts.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:52 AM
  #391
du5566*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,471
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Did you actually crunch the numbers on this forbes article? Let's just assume it isn't full of crap (how do they know how to factor in merchandise sales and related stadium revenues not considered part of HRR?) - the combined operating income (and this is apparently net of debt service payments) of all 30 teams was $250M last season. Remove the Leafs, Habs, Rangers and its 45M - still more than enough to share with the rest of the league.

The reality is the system would be a lot more effective if it was a penalized luxury tax system - not something tied to HRR like a hard salary cap. Ask any economist how artificial quotas work on the marketplace in the long run....
So divide 250 million by 30 or 45 million by 27? So individual players will be making more than NHL team owners? Seems reasonable, you should run this plan by the owners and see if you can get them on board. After all why shouldn't the owners bare all of the responsibility for growing the league when that same growth has provided the players salary increases of nearly 300 percent? Haha, this makes sense to you?

du5566* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:54 AM
  #392
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
The PA likes not being allowed to play and make money? Do you know what a lockout means?
There's money there waiting for them; they're just satisfied with the numbers. No one is preventing them from being payed but themsleves.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 11:59 AM
  #393
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
Haha; because league parity, thriving NHL teams in large North American (non-traditional hockey markets), and 30 financially viable NHL teams is in no way a benefit to the overall financial health of the league. All of which are necessary to land a national TV deal on par with the other major sports in North America, also in no way a benefit to the overall financial health of the league.
I agree that league parity ensures financial health; I completely disagree that the NHL's version of a salary cap lead to more parity or financial health.

The salary floor has lead to teams raising expenses at a faster pace than their revenues - hence the mess that some of them are in right now

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:02 PM
  #394
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme View Post
Thanks for your post - I'm adding it into my bigger post about common misconceptions.

The players NEVER got exactly what their contract stipulated 100% because the amount was always subject to actual revenues - something called linkage. So for the players to say that they would no longer be getting what they were promised is disingenuous, as they NEVER got that amount in the first place!
This logic is just wrong. They were due to get the money, unless HRR came in lower. Spoiler alert: it wasn't going to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scheme
To see that the players are getting a huge freebie (which the owners never had to give them), just look at the NBAPA. Realized the economic situation, went to 50-50 without any tricks, and without needing a "make whole".
Not true - NBA has no hard salary cap. No make whole was necessary.

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:03 PM
  #395
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
I'm generally pro-NHL, but the whole "the last CBA means nothing" argument bothers me. If that were the case, then why is the cap a given? The last CBA was absolutely the starting point for these new negotiations, to say otherwise is ignoring the facts.
Not going to outright disagree with you there, because simply I don't disagree. However, CBAs are renegotiated every several years for a reason, and that's to adapt to the economic realities or economic evolution of the sport. If all previously negotiated elements cannot be changed, then what's the point of even attempting a new CBA. So again, that's why I was made content by the Make Whole offer. It meant that 50/50 would not happen immediately, that for the first 2, now 4, years there would be an accommodation of some degree to those previously negotiated contracts under the old CBA. To stretch it longer that than, or whatever changes are proposed, would essentially make this new CBA meaningless.

I seriously question why any contract details should outlast the length of a CBA. It seems a total contradiction to me.

MoreOrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:04 PM
  #396
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
When did it become a right for venture capitalists to make a profit?

When was it decided that owning a professional sports team should be a "zero risk" proposition?

The players deserve to fight for a better deal just as much as the owners do. If any particular owner doesnt think they can make money running an NHL team, then maybe pro sports isn't for them.
Who said it was a right? It isn't. But if the profits aren't there, these venture capitalists have every right to close up shop and fold the league. Then where does that leave the players? You see the point?

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:05 PM
  #397
The Legend
Stamkos in 2016
 
The Legend's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
So divide 250 million by 30 or 45 million by 27? So individual players will be making more than NHL team owners? Seems reasonable, you should run this plan by the owners and see if you can get them on board. After all why shouldn't the owners bare all of the responsibility for growing the league when that same growth has provided the players salary increases of nearly 300 percent? Haha, this makes sense to you?
Do you think that every individual owner is entitled to make more than every individual player no matter what?

The Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:07 PM
  #398
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilky01 View Post
It wasn't the players who demanded an economic structure. Cost certainty was the league's idea, not the player's.

Now it has backfired and the league wants a free mulligan.
The owners wanted a capped system. In return for this, the players demanded 57% of the HRR. The owners wanted to give them far less, but they tried it. It isn't working well, so they want it adjusted. It's as simple as that.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:12 PM
  #399
smackdaddy
Hall-RNH-Eberle
 
smackdaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
I agree that league parity ensures financial health; I completely disagree that the NHL's version of a salary cap lead to more parity or financial health.

The salary floor has lead to teams raising expenses at a faster pace than their revenues - hence the mess that some of them are in right now
That's because the high end revenue teams brought in 80% of the revenue, expanding their profits at a much faster rate then the other teams. Not that that's a bad thing, its just this idea of averaged revenue to dictate cap floor/ceiling is inherently flawed and must be corrected.

And to compound the issue is the inflated overpaid salaries of the players, who receive the majority of the revenue.

smackdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-31-2012, 12:13 PM
  #400
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Legend View Post
Yes - everything. The NHL pays the players money individually on set contracts. So they already set the terms on how much each player makes. The best players make the most. Great system. If the NHL wants to say that it needs a better system so all teams are healthy, the PA is obviously going to come up with alternative ways to make those teams healthy.

If revenue sharing is no longer an issue, it probably is because the NHL and PA have gotten onto the same page about it - which makes it even more baffling that you think it shouldn't be discussed.

When did Donald Fehr call it a strike?
A few weeks ago during his interview after the "player/owner only" meetings blew up.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.