Linkage at 55% offered by Owners ..What does it mean ??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
kerrly said:
The NHL has proposed revenue sharing in its linked proposals so that every team will be able to at least meet the minimum for the salary floor of 53% or whatever it turns out to be in the end. Very simple if you choose to not ignore these things.


Again, not to sound like I am stupid, as I am not.. But I am trying to walk through this as a player..

I am on the owners side of the fence.. I want to know WHY the players could not live with this.


DO we know what the revenue sharing plan was, cause the PA keeps claiming its not there, and the media has not talked at all about meaningful revenue sharing from the owners side?
 

ArtG

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
2,815
12
Vancouver, BC
Drury_Sakic said:
Again, not to sound like I am stupid, as I am not.. But I am trying to walk through this as a player..

I am on the owners side of the fence.. I want to know WHY the players could not live with this.


DO we know what the revenue sharing plan was, cause the PA keeps claiming its not there, and the media has not talked at all about meaningful revenue sharing from the owners side?
I don't know what the plan was exactly but I do remember Bettman saying that if there was cost certainty then there would definitely be revenue sharing.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Drury_Sakic said:
Again, not to sound like I am stupid, as I am not.. But I am trying to walk through this as a player..

I am on the owners side of the fence.. I want to know WHY the players could not live with this.


DO we know what the revenue sharing plan was, cause the PA keeps claiming its not there, and the media has not talked at all about meaningful revenue sharing from the owners side?

8. Revenue Sharing. In connection with our new economic system, as we have previously explained to you, we intend to implement meaningful revenue sharing by and between the Clubs. As you know, we previously provided you with an extensive description of concepts for enhanced revenue sharing -- including over 30 different models of potential revenue sharing scenarios. We reiterate our willingness to implement, in conjunction with a new economic system, an enhanced revenue sharing program that will allow the new system to operate as intended. Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range.

This is the the revenue sharing proposal from the Dec. 14 proposal from the league, which has been transferred to the other linked proposals. It does not state how much or how this revenue sharing will be divided amongst the teams, but I'm sure that it has to do with the fact that they have no finals numbers to work with as a new CBA hasn't been signed, and all the numbers to show how teams would get to the minimum threshold would be useless.

It was stated sometime around the cancellation of the season that the NHL planned to share upwards of $80m a season, for every season of the agreement, but I cannot remember where I heard it. Although I did find proof of this from the NHLPA website where the NHLPA planned to implement the NHL's revenue sharing idea in their proposal. This was the proposal that included the $49m soft cap, that could increase to $53.9m a few times over the course of the proposal.

(c)Replace NHLPA Revenue Sharing Plan with NHL Revenue Sharing Plan to share at least $88M in each year of the Agreement. Clubs may credit any payroll taxes paid against their revenue sharing contribution.

Look under #2. CBA system, section (c)

http://www.nhlpa.com/MediaReleases/ReleaseDetails.asp?mediaReleaseDisplayId={A23D7FA2-CA27-41C6-990E-33AEC0C394AF}

Careful when using the link, I just noticed in the post that there is a space between A23D7FA2 -CA27. I tried to correct it but I cannot. If you use the link please correct this in your browser's address bar.
 
Last edited:

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
thank you..

I am just trying to see BOTH sides of the argument..

I have spent the last month or two hating the players for what they have done and complaining about the way they botched this..

Now, I am attempting to take on their argument to try and understand how THEY see it. Yeah, Bob has some good Cool-Aid... but there HAS to be something we are not seeing(other than just blind greed) that the players are looking at... Right?

(Pro-Owners people, its a retorical question) :lol

This is what the owners should have been doing, oh.. say a year ago.. but anyways..

;)
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Drury_Sakic said:
thank you..

I am just trying to see BOTH sides of the argument..

I have spent the last month or two hating the players for what they have done and complaining about the way they botched this..

Now, I am attempting to take on their argument to try and understand how THEY see it. Yeah, Bob has some good Cool-Aid... but there HAS to be something we are not seeing(other than just blind greed) that the players are looking at... Right?

(Pro-Owners people, its a retorical question) :lol

This is what the owners should have been doing, oh.. say a year ago.. but anyways..

;)

The owners should have been doing what? Seeing things from the players' perspective? Very few here right now understand what the players are seeing, other than something like 'I have a right to a salary far in excess of what the sport can pay because my a$$ is golden.' How would the owners understanding the players position, even a year ago, have helped to solve the chasm between the players and this little place called reality?
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Jaded-Fan said:
The owners should have been doing what? Seeing things from the players' perspective? Very few here right now understand what the players are seeing, other than something like 'I have a right to a salary far in excess of what the sport can pay because my a$$ is golden.' How would the owners understanding the players position, even a year ago, have helped to solve the chasm between the players and this little place called reality?


It cannot be just about money... there is some level of principle involved on the players side..


How wacky that is.. thats debatable..


Its the same from the owners side... all they want to do is make money..... but they have principles that they are fighting for..

:banghead:


Just try, for one second, to think about how the players are looking at this...

Its how things are done in trade, negotiations, and politics.

You have to look at where the other side is coming from, what they want, and attempt to find a soultion that benifits both sides, finaicially and fundamentally.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
rwilson99 said:
Cheated? After months of arguing against linkage... now the PApologists want linkage.

:dunce:
Who said I wanted linkage .. I would never recommend the players hitch their wagons to the Owners trust of creative book keeping ..

However from a business point of Linkage would be the fairest for both sides .. but then the Players would also have to have more say in marketing the game ..
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Drury_Sakic said:
Again, not to sound like I am stupid, as I am not.. But I am trying to walk through this as a player..

I am on the owners side of the fence.. I want to know WHY the players could not live with this.


DO we know what the revenue sharing plan was, cause the PA keeps claiming its not there, and the media has not talked at all about meaningful revenue sharing from the owners side?

The final $42M hard cap, no floor, offer had some details concerning revenue sharing. These details are necessary for a no linkage offer to assure the players that low revenue teams have the capability to to pay a reasonable payroll since there is no salary floor. Here the PA had some grounds for complaints - the total revenue sharing pool declined over the life of the offer

The 53-55% linkage, salary range, escrow offer (Feb 2 offer) did not have details on revenue sharing. A linkage offer with a floor does not need to define the details of revenue sharing. All teams are required to meet the floor and the total salary has to hit the 53-55% revenue target. The league and all the teams would be legally comitted to those terms. It should not matter to the players/PA how the league and teams decide to do revenue sharing - no matter what the league decides, the players get their 53-55% and the salary range formula defines the min and max team salaries. Whether revenue sharing comes from the playoffs, shared gate or TV revenues, or the Leafs subsidizing the whole league, it does not matter. Again repeat after me: no matter what the league decides, the players are guaranteed their 53-55% and salary floor and ceiling.
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Drury_Sakic said:
It cannot be just about money... there is some level of principle involved on the players side..

Sorry, can't agree. It's about money. Period. On both sides.

The owners want to stop losing it, and start making some, and the players want to keep feeding at the trough as much as possible, and as long as possible.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Who said I wanted linkage .. I would never recommend the players hitch their wagons to the Owners trust of creative book keeping ..

However from a business point of Linkage would be the fairest for both sides .. but then the Players would also have to have more say in marketing the game ..
Why don't the players spend less time whining and more time hammering out the linkage?

Look, we all know there will be a salary cap. The PA has already caved towards it. Linkage is not de facto now on the table, so the players might as well make the best of it and milk every cent they can.

This "creative" book keeping... do you even know what it is? You make it sound like they are lying on pen and paper. Truth is, this "creative book keeping" the players ***** and moan about is nothing more then additional investments the owners have, some of which the players are entitled to and some of which they arn't.

Lets take a few examples:
  • Private box's - players should be entitled to a percentage of the box, and that should be based upon the number of events that are NHL hockey games, cost of average ticket and such.
  • Parking lots - sorry, players, you have no right to stick your nose in that business. What's next, are they gonna milk public transit for all they're worth?
  • Concession - Like bands playing in bars, players should be entitled to a percentage. Hammer it out, boys.

The faster the NHLPA realizes that a cap is most certaintly in, they can start hammering out what goes into team revenue.
 

ArtG

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
2,815
12
Vancouver, BC
The Messenger said:
Who said I wanted linkage .. I would never recommend the players hitch their wagons to the Owners trust of creative book keeping ..

However from a business point of Linkage would be the fairest for both sides .. but then the Players would also have to have more say in marketing the game ..
do you even bother reading replies or do you just keep on posting the same thing over and over again?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Indicative of PA mentality?

If this thread gives an accurate picture of the level of stupidity present amoungst the players, is it really a surprise that the NHL couldn't get the PA to face reality and that no deal was reached?

I'm embarrassed for you Messenger.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
Russian Fan said:
Come on stop the NHLCBAnews rhetoric, your brainwashed. I don't read any NHLPAnews to get an opinion.

Owners want the players to get linked on the revenue
Owners want the players to get capped on the rookie salary with NO BONUS
Owners want QO DOWN
Owners want the UFA to stay the same or go at 30
Owners DONT WANT stable revenue sharing.

Every important of the CBA , they want the PA to crumble & beg down on their knees.

Did you read my post or when you didn,t agree on the 1st word you saw, you push the reply button. If you read it again, you'll see that I did go down on BOTH SIDE.

So stop this rhetoric about how the owners should do whatever it takes to get it FIXED becuase it takes 2 to negotiate.

Blah blah blah. Yep I'm brainwashed. Give me a break. It wasn't NHL rhetoric. It's the the cold hard truth from my point of view. Sometimes it only takes one negotiate.....when there is a much weaker party in a negotiation that doesn't hold any cards that side has to cave so it can scavenge from the scraps. There were some nice leftovers a couple of years ago, and less once the lockout began and now there is nothing. The PA put themselves in the position to get crushed in this negotiation through Goodenow's wait wait wait tactics. They misread the situation and didn't settle for the best possible deal. The league offered fair beginnings to negotiation in December and on Feb 2, then again when they dropped linkage later in Feb. They offered to open up negotiations quite some time ago WHICH THE PA ADMITTED THE LEAGUE DID and the PA turned that down. The only way it can be said the PA didn't slit their own throats is if Goodenow is a magician IMO.

Yes the owners wanted linkage....but they ended up dropping that for a while. Then the players wanted only one way linkage after being against the concept the entire time. At that point in the process it was a despicable thing for the union to try. In September they probably could have gotten some sort of downward protection but not at that time. There is nothing unfair about linking salaries to 55 % of global league revenues.

Rookie cap...the owners offered bonuses limited to 250 k to "A" bonuses in the Feb 2 offer with additional bonus for league awards paid by league. The PA offered 800 k in "A" bonuses and tried to do an end run of that with unlimited "B" and "C" bonuses. Both sides limited signing bonus. But this was just numbers. The PA was prepared, in the end, to throw the young guys under the bus as they do every CBA negotiation.

Owners wanted QO down...only on players making over 800k. They wanted to remove the inflationary aspect of the qualifying offer. Salary inflation should be based on performance not a mandatory raise.

Owners wanted free agency to stay the same or only go down to 30. PA proposed no changes to free agency.

Owners don't want stable revenue sharing. Beyond guaranteeing franchise number and jobs (i.e. no less than 30 teams over the course of the CBA or something) and revenue stream definitions it is no business of the PA how the revenue is shared or even if it is. That is especially the case in a cap/linkage system where the players share is derived from the global revenue pool. The PA in one of their schemes had less revenue sharing than what the NHL was offering on Feb 2. I've criticized the league in this as this is an olive branch the owners probably should have extended a bit more(like Burke has been). But the fact remains beyond those job guarantees it isn't really something to be put in a CBA or even party to CBA negotiations. It isn't in the NFL or NBA CBA's for example (that I've seen). Changes are made to revenue sharing in those sports without any input from the union.

The fact of the matter is by the PA not accepting to negotiate under the system(s) proposed by the party that held the much better hand in this negotiation and control the money they put themselves in a position to get crushed. They put themselves in this situation by not starting negotiations years ago, they put themselves in this position by not fully understanding the other sides position by hiring their own study or participating with the NHL, they put themselves in this position by waiting to long and then trying to get one way linkage or soft caps and other end runs around what the league was trying to achieve. So while yes the owners at this time are going for the kill and are going to make the union beg it did not have to be that way. It was always a possible outcome and yes some owners probably wanted it all along but NEVER EVER did it have to be this outcome. The NHL provided some very fair starting point of 53-55% of revenues that the union downright refused to even look at. This has become the only outcome through the PA's own misguided strategies. So yes they have slit their own throats. It may be the owners knife but the PA leadership is wielding it.
 
Last edited:

SENSible1*

Guest
tantalum said:
Blah blah blah. Yep I'm brainwashed. Give me a break. It wasn't NHL rhetoric. It's the the cold hard truth from my point of view. Sometimes it only takes one negotiate.....when there is a much weaker party in a negotiation that doesn't hold any cards that side has to cave so it can scavenge from teh scraps. There were some nice leftovers a couple of years ago, and less once the lockout began and now there is nothing. The PA put themselves in the position to get crushed in this negotiation through Goodenow's wait wait wait tactics. They misread the situation and didn't settle for the best possible deal. The league offered fair beginnings to negotiation in December and on Feb 2 then again when they dropped linkage later in Feb. They offered to open up negotiations quite some time ago WHICH THE PA ADMITTED THE LEAGUE DID and the PA turned that down. The only way it can be said the PA didn't slit their own throats is if Goodenow is a magician IMO.

Yes the owners wanted linkage....but they ended up dropping that for a while. Then the players wanted only one way linkage after being against the concept the entire time. At that point in the process it was a despicable thing for the union to try. In September they probably could have gotten somesort of downward protection but not at that time. There is nothing unfair about linking salaries to 55 % of global league revenues.

Rookie cap...the owners offered bonuses limited to 250 k to "A" bonuses in the Feb 2 offer with additional bonus for league awards paid by league. The PA offered 800 k in "A" bonuses and tried to do an end run of that with unlimited "B" and "C" bonuses. Both sides limited signing bonus. But this was just numbers. The PA was prepared in the end to throw the young guys under the bus as they do every CBA negotiation.

Owners wanted QO down...only on players making over 800k. They wanted to remove the inflationary aspect of the qualifying offer. Salary inflation should be based on performance not a mandatory raise.

Owners wanted free agency to stay the same or only go down to 30. PA proposed no changes to free agency.

Owners don't want stable revenue sharing. Beyond guaranteeing franchise number and jobs (i.e. no less than 30 teams over the course of the CBA or something) it is no business of the PA how the revenue is shared or even if it is. That is especially the case in a cap/linkage system where the players share is derived from the global revenue pool. The PA in one of their schemes had less revenue sharing than what the NHL was offering Feb 2 on. I've criticized the league in this as this is an olive branch the owners probably should have extended a bit more(like Burke has been). But the fact remains beyond those job guarantees it isn't really something to be put in a CBA or even party to CBA negotiations. It isn't in the NFL or NBA CBA's for example (that I've seen). Changes are made to revenue sharing in those sports without any input from the union.

The fact of the matter is by the PA not accepting to negotiate under the system(s) proposed by the party that held the much better hand in this negotiation and control the money they put themselves in a position to get crushed. They put themselves in this situation by not starting negotiations years ago, they put themselves in this position by not fully understanding the other sides position by hiring their own study or participating with the NHL, they put themselves in this position by waiting to long and then trying to get one way linkage or soft caps and other end runs around what the league was trying to achieve. So while yes the owners at this time are going for the kill and are going to make the union beg it did not have to be that way. It was always a possible outcome and yes some owners probably wanted it all along but NEVER EVER did it have to be this outcome. The NHL provided some very fair starting point of 53-55% of revenues that the union downright refused to even look at. This has become the only outcome through the PA's own misguided strategies. So yes they have slit their own throats. It may be the owners knife but the PA leadership is wielding it.

Brilliant post! :handclap: :handclap: :handclap:

Summarizes the events to this point beautifully.
 

eye

Registered User
Feb 17, 2003
1,607
0
around the 49th para
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Bet you tomorrow after the meeting that Linkage is back on the table for the NHL ..

The players do not want Linkage because that requires TRUST in the owners numbers .. The players not to be connected to the OWNERS or the Revenue Stream directly if they can help it ..

Do you really believe that NBA and NFL PA members trust their owners 100%? There are ways to create enough trust on both sides to make this work. If players have a stake in growing the game they will work that much harder. It's win win for everyone concerned, not just the owners.

I offered my most loyal employee a % of my business which required that he invest some of his money back into the company. I didn't need his money but I wanted him to feel like he had something at stake.

A freeby might have had counter productive results. That was 4 years ago and the business has never been more lucrative for both of us. Linkage and partnership works. I don't consider the players partners but they should be treated like something more than just employees. To be treated that way though they have to act that way first and not visa versa.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
bcrt2000 said:
the union hasn't even discussed what a fair linkage level would be because of their anti-negotiation tactics


the owners haven't even discussed what a fair deal would be because of their anti-negotiation tactics
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,621
21,958
Nova Scotia
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Who said I wanted linkage .. I would never recommend the players hitch their wagons to the Owners trust of creative book keeping ..

However from a business point of Linkage would be the fairest for both sides .. but then the Players would also have to have more say in marketing the game ..
If the players played the game and helped promote it(ala the NBA and NFL) they could help the league sell itself to the fans...the players will prosper in an environment where the revenue goes up...it's up to them to market themselves and the game better than they have...Right now the PGA does a better job of marketing their players than the NHL and it's PA promote themselves. Linkage is a good thing just ask the NFL guys...if you work at it it will go up!
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
tantalum said:
Blah blah blah. Yep I'm brainwashed. Give me a break. It wasn't NHL rhetoric. It's the the cold hard truth from my point of view. Sometimes it only takes one negotiate.....when there is a much weaker party in a negotiation that doesn't hold any cards that side has to cave so it can scavenge from teh scraps. There were some nice leftovers a couple of years ago, and less once the lockout began and now there is nothing. The PA put themselves in the position to get crushed in this negotiation through Goodenow's wait wait wait tactics. They misread the situation and didn't settle for the best possible deal. The league offered fair beginnings to negotiation in December and on Feb 2 then again when they dropped linkage later in Feb. They offered to open up negotiations quite some time ago WHICH THE PA ADMITTED THE LEAGUE DID and the PA turned that down. The only way it can be said the PA didn't slit their own throats is if Goodenow is a magician IMO.

Yes the owners wanted linkage....but they ended up dropping that for a while. Then the players wanted only one way linkage after being against the concept the entire time. At that point in the process it was a despicable thing for the union to try. In September they probably could have gotten somesort of downward protection but not at that time. There is nothing unfair about linking salaries to 55 % of global league revenues.

Rookie cap...the owners offered bonuses limited to 250 k to "A" bonuses in the Feb 2 offer with additional bonus for league awards paid by league. The PA offered 800 k in "A" bonuses and tried to do an end run of that with unlimited "B" and "C" bonuses. Both sides limited signing bonus. But this was just numbers. The PA was prepared in the end to throw the young guys under the bus as they do every CBA negotiation.

Owners wanted QO down...only on players making over 800k. They wanted to remove the inflationary aspect of the qualifying offer. Salary inflation should be based on performance not a mandatory raise.

Owners wanted free agency to stay the same or only go down to 30. PA proposed no changes to free agency.

Owners don't want stable revenue sharing. Beyond guaranteeing franchise number and jobs (i.e. no less than 30 teams over the course of the CBA or something) it is no business of the PA how the revenue is shared or even if it is. That is especially the case in a cap/linkage system where the players share is derived from the global revenue pool. The PA in one of their schemes had less revenue sharing than what the NHL was offering Feb 2 on. I've criticized the league in this as this is an olive branch the owners probably should have extended a bit more(like Burke has been). But the fact remains beyond those job guarantees it isn't really something to be put in a CBA or even party to CBA negotiations. It isn't in the NFL or NBA CBA's for example (that I've seen). Changes are made to revenue sharing in those sports without any input from the union.

The fact of the matter is by the PA not accepting to negotiate under the system(s) proposed by the party that held the much better hand in this negotiation and control the money they put themselves in a position to get crushed. They put themselves in this situation by not starting negotiations years ago, they put themselves in this position by not fully understanding the other sides position by hiring their own study or participating with the NHL, they put themselves in this position by waiting to long and then trying to get one way linkage or soft caps and other end runs around what the league was trying to achieve. So while yes the owners at this time are going for the kill and are going to make the union beg it did not have to be that way. It was always a possible outcome and yes some owners probably wanted it all along but NEVER EVER did it have to be this outcome. The NHL provided some very fair starting point of 53-55% of revenues that the union downright refused to even look at. This has become the only outcome through the PA's own misguided strategies. So yes they have slit their own throats. It may be the owners knife but the PA leadership is wielding it.

Great Post! :bow:
Like most of the well thought out and concise posts on the subject, I expect it will be completely ignored by the NHLPA supporters.
 

ArtG

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
2,815
12
Vancouver, BC
tantalum said:
Blah blah blah. Yep I'm brainwashed. Give me a break. It wasn't NHL rhetoric. It's the the cold hard truth from my point of view. Sometimes it only takes one negotiate.....when there is a much weaker party in a negotiation that doesn't hold any cards that side has to cave so it can scavenge from teh scraps. There were some nice leftovers a couple of years ago, and less once the lockout began and now there is nothing. The PA put themselves in the position to get crushed in this negotiation through Goodenow's wait wait wait tactics. They misread the situation and didn't settle for the best possible deal. The league offered fair beginnings to negotiation in December and on Feb 2 then again when they dropped linkage later in Feb. They offered to open up negotiations quite some time ago WHICH THE PA ADMITTED THE LEAGUE DID and the PA turned that down. The only way it can be said the PA didn't slit their own throats is if Goodenow is a magician IMO.

Yes the owners wanted linkage....but they ended up dropping that for a while. Then the players wanted only one way linkage after being against the concept the entire time. At that point in the process it was a despicable thing for the union to try. In September they probably could have gotten somesort of downward protection but not at that time. There is nothing unfair about linking salaries to 55 % of global league revenues.

Rookie cap...the owners offered bonuses limited to 250 k to "A" bonuses in the Feb 2 offer with additional bonus for league awards paid by league. The PA offered 800 k in "A" bonuses and tried to do an end run of that with unlimited "B" and "C" bonuses. Both sides limited signing bonus. But this was just numbers. The PA was prepared in the end to throw the young guys under the bus as they do every CBA negotiation.

Owners wanted QO down...only on players making over 800k. They wanted to remove the inflationary aspect of the qualifying offer. Salary inflation should be based on performance not a mandatory raise.

Owners wanted free agency to stay the same or only go down to 30. PA proposed no changes to free agency.

Owners don't want stable revenue sharing. Beyond guaranteeing franchise number and jobs (i.e. no less than 30 teams over the course of the CBA or something) it is no business of the PA how the revenue is shared or even if it is. That is especially the case in a cap/linkage system where the players share is derived from the global revenue pool. The PA in one of their schemes had less revenue sharing than what the NHL was offering Feb 2 on. I've criticized the league in this as this is an olive branch the owners probably should have extended a bit more(like Burke has been). But the fact remains beyond those job guarantees it isn't really something to be put in a CBA or even party to CBA negotiations. It isn't in the NFL or NBA CBA's for example (that I've seen). Changes are made to revenue sharing in those sports without any input from the union.

The fact of the matter is by the PA not accepting to negotiate under the system(s) proposed by the party that held the much better hand in this negotiation and control the money they put themselves in a position to get crushed. They put themselves in this situation by not starting negotiations years ago, they put themselves in this position by not fully understanding the other sides position by hiring their own study or participating with the NHL, they put themselves in this position by waiting to long and then trying to get one way linkage or soft caps and other end runs around what the league was trying to achieve. So while yes the owners at this time are going for the kill and are going to make the union beg it did not have to be that way. It was always a possible outcome and yes some owners probably wanted it all along but NEVER EVER did it have to be this outcome. The NHL provided some very fair starting point of 53-55% of revenues that the union downright refused to even look at. This has become the only outcome through the PA's own misguided strategies. So yes they have slit their own throats. It may be the owners knife but the PA leadership is wielding it.
great post.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
Great post I agree.

What is distrubing is the use of the phrase 'the fact of the matter is...' is increasing with each passing day on these boards...Bettman and Daly repeated use of this seems to be wearing off...

:joker:
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
ti-vite said:
Great post I agree.

What is distrubing is the use of the phrase 'the fact of the matter is...' is increasing with each passing day on these boards...Bettman and Daly repeated use of this seems to be wearing off...

:joker:

Sorry. But I think it's a nearly perfect turn of phrase on this situation from from my point of view. A point of view that, of course, could end up being completely skewed and wrong. Doesn't look that way to most but it could be.
 

JohnnyReb

Registered User
Apr 26, 2003
704
0
Visit site
Despite the "boy are you ever a moron" posts being tossed at the pro-player side, nobody can explain how this escrow account is supposed to work, or how its not going to screw over the small market teams it was supposed to save.

Lets take everybody's favorite example, Pittsburgh. Hypothetically, lets say they can afford $27 million, before they lose money. So they sign 23 players and have a payroll of $27 million. They break even.

But...

55% linkage says they have to pay $32 million. But who gets the money? The 23 players all signed by the Pens all have legitimate contracts, totalling $27 million. How will this be divided up? More importantly, where will the money come from? If, hypothetically, Colorado has spent $32 million already, should they contribute more? Should they have to pay more than 55% of revenue? Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others? Or do they say "screw you, we've met our requirements."

The Pens are $5 million short, which if they draw from their own pocket, will mean they will still be losing money. Revenue sharing? Ignore for a moment that it will mean some teams will be paying more than 55%, what about all these rumours that say the league revenue sharing plans will diminish and disappear by Year 6 of the agreement? What happens to the Pens then?

"Don't worry about it!!! Not the player's concern!!! The owners will find a way to cover the costs, and the players will get their money!!! Moron!"

The reason NFL-style linkage works is because all money is goes into a pool, and is then divided up equally amongst all teams (and if you do a google search on NFL revenue, you'll see that this is quite the contentious issue amongst NFL owners and players too). Even though the Arizona Cardinals have a MUCH, MUCH smaller revenue stream then say, the Washington Redskins, the Cardinals get the same amount of money as the 'Skins do. Can anybody see NHL owners doing that?

Or is more likely that they'll simply "hide" revenues?
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
JohnnyReb said:
"Don't worry about it!!! Not the player's concern!!! The owners will find a way to cover the costs, and the players will get their money!!! Moron!"

Beyond guaranteeing that those jobs remain (i.e. 30 teams) it is not the PA's concern how the league chooses to make those teams viable under the system. The only thing the PA has to concern themsleves with is the percentage of the global revenue the players get, the definition of the revenue streams (i.e. cap calculation) and appointing a good auditor. As a CBA is a legally binding document the league has not choice but to honour that percentage. If the PA wants to allocate that money evenly over 700 players or to certain teams I'm sure they can get a say in that but they do not get a say in how the league gives the PA that money.

Or is more likely that they'll simply "hide" revenues?

INDEPENDENT JOINTLY APPOINTED AUDITORS confirming the revenues based upon the NEGOTIATED revenue streams.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
JohnnyReb said:
Despite the "boy are you ever a moron" posts being tossed at the pro-player side, nobody can explain how this escrow account is supposed to work, or how its not going to screw over the small market teams it was supposed to save.

Lets take everybody's favorite example, Pittsburgh. Hypothetically, lets say they can afford $27 million, before they lose money. So they sign 23 players and have a payroll of $27 million. They break even.

But...

55% linkage says they have to pay $32 million. But who gets the money? The 23 players all signed by the Pens all have legitimate contracts, totalling $27 million. How will this be divided up? More importantly, where will the money come from? If, hypothetically, Colorado has spent $32 million already, should they contribute more? Should they have to pay more than 55% of revenue? Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others? Or do they say "screw you, we've met our requirements."

The Pens are $5 million short, which if they draw from their own pocket, will mean they will still be losing money. Revenue sharing? Ignore for a moment that it will mean some teams will be paying more than 55%, what about all these rumours that say the league revenue sharing plans will diminish and disappear by Year 6 of the agreement? What happens to the Pens then?

"Don't worry about it!!! Not the player's concern!!! The owners will find a way to cover the costs, and the players will get their money!!! Moron!"

The reason NFL-style linkage works is because all money is goes into a pool, and is then divided up equally amongst all teams (and if you do a google search on NFL revenue, you'll see that this is quite the contentious issue amongst NFL owners and players too). Even though the Arizona Cardinals have a MUCH, MUCH smaller revenue stream then say, the Washington Redskins, the Cardinals get the same amount of money as the 'Skins do. Can anybody see NHL owners doing that?

Or is more likely that they'll simply "hide" revenues?

The disappearing revenue sharing was in the non-linked proposal. Every linked proposal the NHL has made has guaranteed enough money for teams to spend to the salary floor. If you want proof, please go back a few pages and read my other post on the NHL revenue sharing plans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->