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

[Tawnos]

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.

Click to read more...

 

[joepeps]

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.

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...

 

[Motown Beatdown]

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.

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

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

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.

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.

 

[Jobu]

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.

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.

 

[Shainsaw]

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.

 

[Anksun]

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...

 

[Jaded-Fan]

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.

 

[Tawnos]

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.

This makes sense... linkage has gotta work both ways. Thanks.

 

[Jobu]

This makes sense... linkage has gotta work both ways. Thanks.

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.

 

[Fish]

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...

 

[PecaFan]

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.

 

[Jobu]

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.

Wrong. It is illegal to strike while the CBA is in force.

 

[ScottyBowman]

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.

 

[NHLFanSince2020]

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.

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.

 

[Mess]

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.

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

 

[PecaFan]

Wrong. It is illegal to strike while the CBA is in force.

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.

 

[Tawnos]

Didn't the CBA expire in the middle of the year that time?

 

[Drake1588]

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.

 

[ScottyBowman]

Didn't the CBA expire in the middle of the year that time?

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

 

[CGG]

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.

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.

 

[kdb209]

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.

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.

 

[tantalum]

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.

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.

 

[Jobu]

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.

There was no CBA in force then, moron.

 

[PecaFan]

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).

Exactly. They extended the previous CBA a year. That means there was a CBA when they went on strike.