speeds
Registered User
If I'm the players, my next move is to wait.
Either that, or as an alternative, agree to everything the owners have asked for, a cap with linkage at total league revenues/30 per team limit (multiplied by whatever % the union wants to start at, say, 58%), BUT ONLY if the league agrees to 100% revenue sharing, which would require things like auditors, defining a dollar, etc.
I would imagine the reason the players have never agreed to linkage is because they believe the owners will be "sneaky" with their revenue, and try to minimize wherever possible the amount that is considered "hockey revenue".
I think this approach might work for the players because instead of having it be a battle of players vs. the owners with regards to what constitutes a dollar it can be a batle of each owner vs. each owner, as well as vs. the players.
Meaning that if CHI tries to hide 3 mil in revenues from the players in a cap world without revenue sharing, the owners not only don't mind this they encourage it, because each dollar CHI hides is one less dollar for league total revenue and accordingly that's 58 cents saved by each team across the league.
If you set it up with revenue sharing instead of no revenue sharing, now all of a sudden not only do the players want every dollar accounted for, but so do all 30 teams because each dollar in revenue that CHI hides is 3.3 cents gone from each team in revenue. It creates a way for the owners to police themselves instead of the players alone having to police them in an adversarial relationship, and that's why IMO the players are demanding revenue sharing be part of the CBA instead of Bettman's "well, we'll share what we think we need to share after a system is negotiated."
The other good part about such a PA offer is that it gives the owners everything they want, so if/when the refuse it the players look better off. I'm not one that thinks that is particularly important, but it is kind of important anyways.
Additionally, I don't think the players necessarily need it to be 100% rev. sharing, and quite frankly the large market owners would never go for it (nor should they) because it makes each team equally valuable. And how is that fair to the owners of the Rangers, Leafs, etc, who have spent more to acquire their franchise than has the Oilers group, or OTT, MIN, etc?
But, if you got something like 50% revenue sharing then it allows the teams worth more to remain worth more, the teams worth less to remain worth less, and instead of a single cap number you could create a range more like the NHL's earlier offer of 32-42 mil (the range would actually be a %age, but I'll leave it in numbers as an example cause I think it's a bit easier to look at)
Either that, or as an alternative, agree to everything the owners have asked for, a cap with linkage at total league revenues/30 per team limit (multiplied by whatever % the union wants to start at, say, 58%), BUT ONLY if the league agrees to 100% revenue sharing, which would require things like auditors, defining a dollar, etc.
I would imagine the reason the players have never agreed to linkage is because they believe the owners will be "sneaky" with their revenue, and try to minimize wherever possible the amount that is considered "hockey revenue".
I think this approach might work for the players because instead of having it be a battle of players vs. the owners with regards to what constitutes a dollar it can be a batle of each owner vs. each owner, as well as vs. the players.
Meaning that if CHI tries to hide 3 mil in revenues from the players in a cap world without revenue sharing, the owners not only don't mind this they encourage it, because each dollar CHI hides is one less dollar for league total revenue and accordingly that's 58 cents saved by each team across the league.
If you set it up with revenue sharing instead of no revenue sharing, now all of a sudden not only do the players want every dollar accounted for, but so do all 30 teams because each dollar in revenue that CHI hides is 3.3 cents gone from each team in revenue. It creates a way for the owners to police themselves instead of the players alone having to police them in an adversarial relationship, and that's why IMO the players are demanding revenue sharing be part of the CBA instead of Bettman's "well, we'll share what we think we need to share after a system is negotiated."
The other good part about such a PA offer is that it gives the owners everything they want, so if/when the refuse it the players look better off. I'm not one that thinks that is particularly important, but it is kind of important anyways.
Additionally, I don't think the players necessarily need it to be 100% rev. sharing, and quite frankly the large market owners would never go for it (nor should they) because it makes each team equally valuable. And how is that fair to the owners of the Rangers, Leafs, etc, who have spent more to acquire their franchise than has the Oilers group, or OTT, MIN, etc?
But, if you got something like 50% revenue sharing then it allows the teams worth more to remain worth more, the teams worth less to remain worth less, and instead of a single cap number you could create a range more like the NHL's earlier offer of 32-42 mil (the range would actually be a %age, but I'll leave it in numbers as an example cause I think it's a bit easier to look at)
