Link between salaries and revenues

[Hockeyfan_86]

I hear a lot of talk about the owners wanting a link between revenues and salary...can someone explain with an example because I'm really not too sure on what exactly it means

Click to read more...

 

[Johnnybegood13]

I hear a lot of talk about the owners wanting a link between revenues and salary...can someone explain with an example because I'm really not too sure on what exactly it means

I'm not sure what you need to know (unless you haven't read a thing about the lockout) basicly the league wants to pay the players a fair % amount to the revenues coming in.

Baseball...55% revenue to the players
Basketball...53% revenue to the players
Hockey (last year) 76% revenue to the players

Goodenow hates these numbers so he just says the owners are lying

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I'm not sure what you need to know (unless you haven't read a thing about the lockout) basicly the league wants to pay the players a fair % amount to the revenues coming in.

Baseball...55% revenue to the players
Basketball...53% revenue to the players
Hockey (last year) 76% revenue to the players

Goodenow hates these numbers so he just says the owners are lying

maybe a compromise would be a bridge. i think part of the players repulsion at how this is being rammed down there throat is hte homerum the owners expect in one swing. maybe the owners should agree to phase in the % instead of trying to win it all back at once. would this not at least ackowledge their role in where the finances have gone ?

year 1 - 53m cap
year 2 - 48m cap
year 3 and on - 55% (or negotiated amount)

this would give the sides 2 years to figure out how to trust each other, sort out hockey revenues definitions and set up the infrastructure to form a real partnership.

the owners can afford to take a controled loss for 2 more years to get to the end result.

is this not for the good of the game long term ? the owners are losing money now too without hockey, so why cant they lose money when the result is certain for them.

dr

dr

 

[Hockey_Nut99]

maybe a compromise would be a bridge. i think part of the players repulsion at how this is being rammed down there throat is hte homerum the owners expect in one swing. maybe the owners should agree to phase in the % instead of trying to win it all back at once. would this not at least ackowledge their role in where the finances have gone ?

year 1 - 53m cap
year 2 - 48m cap
year 3 and on - 55% (or negotiated amount)

this would give the sides 2 years to figure out how to trust each other, sort out hockey revenues definitions and set up the infrastructure to form a real partnership.

the owners can afford to take a controled loss for 2 more years to get to the end result.

is this not for the good of the game long term ? the owners are losing money now too without hockey, so why cant they lose money when the result is certain for them.

dr

dr

I don't mind that much. I'm pro-owner but it seems as though the NHL is just jamming this stuff down the players throats pretty quick all in one shot. Especially when they said they want to abolish arbitration. I didn't see that coming. I still think the owners will come out on top no matter how long it takes. A lot of them aren't die hard fans either. They don't care if the games locked out for a year as long as it improves their business. Owners can easily out wait the players. It might not be fair but to me the owners own these teams and they can do what they want to ensure that THEIR business is set up properly for the future. Some of them made poor decisions and paid for them. This is how they plan to fix it. I'm tired of the players saying "it's the owners fault". We all know that. This is what the owners are doing to fix their faults.

If the players don't like it they are free to go work somewhere else. It's the owners right to want their cap and the players right to refuse.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I don't mind that much. I'm pro-owner but it seems as though the NHL is just jamming this stuff down the players throats pretty quick all in one shot. Especially when they said they want to abolish arbitration. I didn't see that coming. I still think the owners will come out on top no matter how long it takes. A lot of them aren't die hard fans either. They don't care if the games locked out for a year as long as it improves their business. Owners can easily out wait the players. It might not be fair but to me the owners own these teams and they can do what they want to ensure that THEIR business is set up properly for the future. Some of them made poor decisions and paid for them. This is how they plan to fix it. I'm tired of the players saying "it's the owners fault". We all know that. This is what the owners are doing to fix their faults.

If the players don't like it they are free to go work somewhere else. It's the owners right to want their cap and the players right to refuse.

i respect that opinion. i would change one thing though.

It might not be fair but to me the owners own these teams and they can do what they want .

i would change "can" to "will because they can"

 

[me2]

maybe a compromise would be a bridge. i think part of the players repulsion at how this is being rammed down there throat is hte homerum the owners expect in one swing. maybe the owners should agree to phase in the % instead of trying to win it all back at once. would this not at least ackowledge their role in where the finances have gone ?

year 1 - 53m cap
year 2 - 48m cap
year 3 and on - 55% (or negotiated amount)

this would give the sides 2 years to figure out how to trust each other, sort out hockey revenues definitions and set up the infrastructure to form a real partnership.

the owners can afford to take a controled loss for 2 more years to get to the end result.

is this not for the good of the game long term ? the owners are losing money now too without hockey, so why cant they lose money when the result is certain for them.

dr

If the NHLPA was interested in that they'd have got it done. Bettman would phasing it in if it meant he got his magical 55%. Both sides aren't arguing about next year, both sides are positioning themselves for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th years. That's when Goodenow wants salaries to go back up, its when Bettman wants salaries held down. Bob isn't going to sign anything that damages his long term position. Bob isn't going to want to go into the next CBA with 55% locked in from the previous position.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

If the NHLPA was interested in that they'd have got it done. Bettman would phasing it in if it meant he got his magical 55%. Both sides aren't arguing about next year, both sides are positioning themselves for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th years. That's when Goodenow wants salaries to go back up, its when Bettman wants salaries held down. Bob isn't going to sign anything that damages his long term position. Bob isn't going to want to go into the next CBA with 55% locked in from the previous position.

i suggest then that the NHL changes their negotiating stance and start being more proactive in their proposal.

there proposal today was all about what they want, not about how to get a deal done.

im tired about hearing how this is a "process".

dr

 

[kurt]

Tying revenue to salaries

Don't forget, there's a fundamental problem involved - What is hockey revenue? I think the main problem the NHLPA has is the fact that the NHL will be the group unilaterally determining "hockey revenue". How could the players trust such a system? I'm definitely a PA sympathizer, and I feel this attempted strong-arming attempt of Bettman and the owners certainly isn't good faith bargaining.

Where's a good ad-hoc legislated resolution when you need one?

 

[me2]

i suggest then that the NHL changes their negotiating stance and start being more proactive in their proposal.

there proposal today was all about what they want, not about how to get a deal done.

im tired about hearing how this is a "process".

dr

I don't see the point. They would spend 10 minutes going yeah thats OK for the 1st few years, now lets deal with the core for the future. They then spend 4 hours arguing over the core and reach exactly the same conclusion they just did. In other words, they'd waste the 1st 10 mins.

Its good to work on a compromise for the 1st few years but its a bit like arguing what colour icing to put on the cake when both sides refuse to even consider the others option for the type of cake.

Until they can solve core they won't bother fiddling around with how to phase it in. Once they solve the core they could work out how to phase it in very quickly.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I don't see the point. They would spend 10 minutes going yeah thats OK for the 1st few years, now lets deal with the core for the future. They then spend 4 hours arguing over the core and reach exactly the same conclusion they just did. In other words, they'd waste the 1st 10 mins.

Its good to work on a compromise for the 1st few years but its a bit like arguing what colour icing to put on the cake when both sides refuse to even consider the others option for the type of cake.

Until they can solve core they won't bother fiddling around with how to phase it in. Once they solve the core they could work out how to phase it in very quickly.

i see what you are saying, but the owners are suggesting the new system starts from day 1. when i say the need to change the negotiation tactics, i mean that they might get some movement from players if the players didnt feel they were taking it up the yahoo.

dr

 

[me2]

i see what you are saying, but the owners are suggesting the new system starts from day 1. when i say the need to change the negotiation tactics, i mean that they might get some movement from players if the players didnt feel they were taking it up the yahoo.

dr

Goodenow would make sure they know they are taking up the yaahoo in the later years. That's his job. Same way Bettman made sure all of the owners knew the 24% rollback was designed to collapse on itself. That's his job.

Until the two of them can see eye to eye on the core issue, be it a cap, a luxury tax or whatever nothing much matters. Both sides will cave in on how to get the 1st two years to work as soon as they solve to core issue.

 

[Johnnybegood13]

I don't mind that much. I'm pro-owner but it seems as though the NHL is just jamming this stuff down the players throats pretty quick all in one shot.

The players,the union,christ the whole hockey world knew this was coming for at least 2 years. sorry if i don't feel sorry about them getting this stuffed down their throats.

They can play for dick overseas, in the AHL,whatever, but i for one don't feel one bit sorry for them.They knew it was coming and should have prepared a real way to fix the problems.