Can someone explain to me how no-linkage is better for the PA?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by Tawnos, Feb 15, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,752
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    For some reason, I would think that linkage is better because then you have a chance for the Cap to increase... doesn't it? Maybe I have this wrong. Someone please explain that to me.
     
  2. joepeps

    joepeps Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,924
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    131
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    In theory you are correct... but the fact remains you can't trust the numbers...

    Lawyers are payed more money to hide money... they can always say there losing money and pocket it all.. it's not a good idea... :dunno:
     
  3. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    It's a risk, but what we dont know are the full details. Maybe it's set up if 55% of revenue excced a certian amount the cap would raise to said amount. Who knows :dunno:
     
  4. FanSince2014

    FanSince2014 What'd He Say?

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    The fear is that revenues will be shrinking over the next few years (consider the TV contract).
    That is why the players don't want linkage.
     
  5. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    Because $2.1b x 53% / 30 teams = $37m cap. With hockey revenues going down, you're talking closer to $30m.

    By the end of this term of the new CBA, it's highly doubtful that 53% or 55% of whatever revenues are will approach $45-50m per team.

    Not to mention the difficulty in defining revenue.
     
  6. Shainsaw

    Shainsaw Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wondering the same

    I was just thinking about the same thing. Are the player hoping to get deal where the cap can go up if the league makes more money but will not go down if the league loses money.
     
  7. Anksun

    Anksun Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2002
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    Montreal
    Home Page:
    Because they are not foolish, they KNOW the nhl is in financial trouble for real.
    They wont admit it, but their position is just that...
     
  8. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,764
    Likes Received:
    2,968
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Anyone else sense a massive unrest problem if revenues do go up in say 4 years or so and the players are paid, to pick a number, about a third of revenues? We all have seen atheletes whine like 3 year olds when they do well after signing a contract. Who doubts that collectively the whine would be deafening if the players have miscalculated? Especially since for most, they would be 'underpaid' their entire careers before a new collective bargaining agreement is negotiated.
     
  9. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,752
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    This makes sense... linkage has gotta work both ways. Thanks.
     
  10. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    Plus, the cap number can always be negotiated higher. The players really have no interest in an economic partnership - they want to be paid a salary commensurate with what the market will pay. They've agreed to discuss a cap, but they're not going to want to risk losing a lucrative market should revenues really take a hit. By the same token, they don't really see much upside in sharing revenues - as they shouldn't. If revenues really take off and owners really start to rake it in, it's simple; just raise the cap next time.
     
  11. Fish

    Fish Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,177
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    Revenues aren't going down...at least not yet. They rose around 100 million in 2003-04, but with a weaker TV deal and the impact of a lockout the predicted drop in revenues from 2003-04 to what might be seen next year and the following years is a real risk.

    53% of revenues for 2005-06 might end up with a cap in the range of 25-35...
     
  12. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    It's quite simple, actually.

    The players will negotiate the cap upwards whenever they need it. The current numbers being talked about are fine for six years or whatever. When this CBA runs out, they'll just ask for more as they always do.

    And of course, they can always strike just before the playoffs, if they can't wait until the CBA expires. They've shown they like that strategy in the past.
     
  13. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    Wrong. It is illegal to strike while the CBA is in force.
     
  14. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:
    Come on guys... Wake up!! Linkage a sham. The players will have it in their CBA to raise the cap a certain amount each year. With linkage, the cap will be lowered every year because the owners will cry poverty.
     
  15. FanSince2014

    FanSince2014 What'd He Say?

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,082
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    All I can think is 'wah wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhh', that music they play on sitcoms when someone gets theirs.

    You would hear the worlds smallest violin playing.

    The players, in not taking linkage, can no longer have ANY interest in how much the owners make.

    The players not taking linkage makes them employees, not partners.
     
  16. Mess

    Mess Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    75,062
    Likes Received:
    809
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Home Page:
    CHART

    Revenue going Down = Linkage Bad

    Revenue going UP = Linkage Good

    SO

    Experts predict lockout fallout is going to drop revenues considerally for years to come..

    See CHART for Linkage Status
     
  17. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Uh dude, you're like, totally wrong eh?

    Check your history. 1992. Ring any bells? You know, like when the players went on strike in April, just before the playoffs.
     
  18. Tawnos

    Tawnos A guy with a bass

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    20,752
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    Didn't the CBA expire in the middle of the year that time?
     
  19. Drake1588

    Drake1588 UNATCO

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Messages:
    28,341
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    The players' reluctance to agree to linkage has less to do with their guess as to whether the NHL's fortunes will rise or fall in the next six years, and more to do with their distrust of NHL team revenue reporting mechanisms. They do not trust the owners' books and a solution on the trust issue was probably impossible. Dropping linkage removes the issue of trust from the CBA negotiations. Now it becomes simply an issue of numbers: hard cap, tax, and revenue sharing among owners.
     
  20. ScottyBowman

    ScottyBowman Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,361
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Detroit
    Home Page:

    NO. Why would anyone do such a foolish thing? Baseball players also went on strike in July of 94
     
  21. CGG

    CGG Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,118
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    96
    Location:
    416
    Dude, check YOUR history. They played that whole season without a CBA (previous one was expired, but both parties agreed to go on under its terms without a CBA). Since there was no CBA, the players decided to go on strike, which was their right. The owners could have locked them out at any time as well. You cannot go on strike or lockout workers during the length of an agreement. It is illegal.
     
  22. kdb209

    kdb209 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    16,271
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Nope. The CBA had expired during the offseason. The league and players continued to play while they negotiated. The players then striked when they had the most leverage - right before the playoffs.

    That is exactly the scenerio the owners are avoiding with the lockout - no games until a new CBA is in place.
     
  23. tantalum

    tantalum Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2002
    Messages:
    16,973
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Trophy Points:
    214
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Chemist
    Location:
    Missouri
    While dropping linkage removes the trust issue using an jointly appointed auditor also removes that trust issue. Trust is a smokescreen that the union is using to insulate themselves from potential losses. Of course they are also insulating themselves from any gains near the end of a lenghty CBA term.
     
  24. Jobu

    Jobu Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    3,264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Home Page:
    There was no CBA in force then, moron.
     
  25. PecaFan

    PecaFan Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,938
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
    Home Page:
    Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"