It's time for a team leader meating!

[me2]

Okay, nyr7andcounting, I'll bite.

I do believe that meaningful revenue sharing is needed in the NHL - the 9-11% that the NHL types have been bandying about is an absolute joke, and making any revenue sharing plan a 50-50 split between regular-season and postseason only serves to penalize those teams that were good enough to make the playoffs in the first place. HOWEVER, revenue sharing, quite frankly, is not the players association's business. Why should they care whether Toronto shares its league-high revenues (due to their market and their hockey demographics which are unparalleled) with a market like Florida or Carolina?

Every dollar taken from Toronto is a dollar taken from the their union brethren's retirement. Unions should help each other out. :lol

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Okay, nyr7andcounting, I'll bite.

I do believe that meaningful revenue sharing is needed in the NHL - the 9-11% that the NHL types have been bandying about is an absolute joke, and making any revenue sharing plan a 50-50 split between regular-season and postseason only serves to penalize those teams that were good enough to make the playoffs in the first place. HOWEVER, revenue sharing, quite frankly, is not the players association's business. Why should they care whether Toronto shares its league-high revenues (due to their market and their hockey demographics which are unparalleled) with a market like Florida or Carolina?

Okay, I'll answer that.... it's because they naturally want Florida's and Carolina's payrolls to approach that of Toronto's, and, as a result, drive up salaries for all teams across the board. In other words, another inflationary trigger that the PA can exploit. In that sense, any cap paired with revenue sharing would indeed act as a "magnet," driving all teams toward that number.

Now, answer me this, nyr7andcounting: if the PA were to get their 100% revenue sharing and the owners paired that with a hard cap tied to a set percentage of hockey-related revenues, set by an independent auditor (say, 55-60%), do you really think that the PA would accept this? My thinking is: HELL NO they wouldn't, because what they would REALLY like to see is 100% revenue sharing with NO CAP AT ALL so that they can inflate salaries with no ceiling - and in even more markets than they are able to now.

Do you think Toronto, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia, etc. would like to see all of their marginal revenues going straight into the hands of the PA???

I am not saying 100%, but a good amount. Would the PA accept a deal if it had revenue sharing but was linkage? I dunno, I wouldn't think so. If you change your linkage to a 42.5 cap with good revenue sharing, I think they would take it.

You stated how it is a good thing for the PA, so what is your problem with them wanting it in a deal? If there is going to be a cap, and the player are going to come down to 40-45 million, than they are going to want revenue sharing in order to get the most money under the cap as possible. You can't blame them...and considering revenue sharing also helps the fans and the small markets that this lockout it's obviously something that needs to be done.