Tawnos
A guy with a bass
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.
Tawnos said: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.
Tawnos said: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).Tawnos said: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.
Tawnos said: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.
Jobu said: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.
Tawnos said:This makes sense... linkage has gotta work both ways. Thanks.
PecaFan said: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.
All I can think is 'wah wah wah wahhhhhhhhhhh', that music they play on sitcoms when someone gets theirs.Jaded-Fan said: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.
CHARTTawnos said: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.
Jobu said:Wrong. It is illegal to strike while the CBA is in force.
Tawnos said:Didn't the CBA expire in the middle of the year that time?
PecaFan said: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.
PecaFan said: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.
Drake1588 said: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.
PecaFan said: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.
gc2005 said: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).