NHLPA should embrace new Paradigm!!

[free0717]

The NHLPA needs to embrace a new Paradigm. One that embraces a cap with linkage. But along with a cap w/linkage the NHLPA should insist on 50% revenue sharing even if it means sharing local revenues.


In Return for giving the owners the above, the players should insist on Free Agency at 4 NHL years of service or the Age of 26 whichever comes first. This would give the players the right to play in there prime wherever they want.

Also by embracing the new Paradigm, the players would do what ever is in there power to Market the league, including grass root programs in the new markets of (Nashville, Atlanta, Phoenix, Columbus etc.)

The demographics must be in these markets that will support an NHL team. I dont see anyone putting there money into a franchise that doesnt have the demographics to support the team in a competitive manner. A good portion of the revenue sharing should finance the grass root programs(youth hockey, etc.)

The grass root programs are the only way hockey has any chance to grow in the new markets and the new teams just dont have the financial capability to properly start and finance these programs. The seeds need to be planted. If Columbus is to ever compete on an even keel with Toronto, the grass roots programs are imperative. Also if there will ever be a National TV contract of any magnitude, the grass roots programs must be invested in.

Without the revenue sharing, what good does a cap do for a team like pittsburgh. These small market teams have to increase the revenue stream. What good is a cap going to do if Pittsburgh is still 20 Million dollars under the cap. The cap wont help small market teams without revenue sharing.

Click to read more...

 

[Drury_Sakic]

In theory though, FA earlier may result in lower paydays for some guys as there will be more players on the market..

When you have only 2 or 3 30 goal scores on the market, their value is big... but if you add another 20 or so like you would if they became FA after 4 seasons, the overall value would go down of each player, and the paydays would get smaller..

 

[HckyFght*]

In Return for giving the owners the above, the players should insist on Free Agency at 4 NHL years of service or the Age of 26 whichever comes first. This would give the players the right to play in there prime wherever they want.

Offering a union profit sharing is a new paradigm for sure, and Goodenow is a fool not to embrace the opportunity, because after four or five or ten years the players could be making more money than ever before...but to say that after drafting a player as a teenager, bringing him along through years and years of training for the pro game, and then not garunteeing a team has the use of his services once he "arrives" in his prime is as self defeating an idea as I can imagine. Why in the world would any team do it? With players playing longer and longer these days, UFA should be 35!

-HckyFght!

 

[free0717]

But there market would be met and all 30 teams would be able to compete against each other for these players on a pretty level playing field due to revenue sharing.

Each player would seek his own level. furthermore, in the long run, the players can build the league,(grass roots program) and on a league wide level, increase there salaries due to linkage.

 

[free0717]

Offering a union profit sharing is a new paradigm for sure, and Goodenow is a fool not to embrace the opportunity, because after four or five or ten years the players could be making more money than ever before...but to say that after drafting a player as a teenager, bringing him along through years and years of training for the pro game, and then not garunteeing a team has the use of his services once he "arrives" in his prime is as self defeating an idea as I can imagine. Why in the world would any team do it? With players playing longer and longer these days, UFA should be 35!

-HckyFght!

Thats the price the owners have to pay for cost certainty. The NFL does it the same way. the owners need to make a choice, cost certainty or player certainty.

 

[SuperUnknown]

You guys should get off the revenue sharing train. Revenue sharing only works when you have common money flowing in (like the huge TV deal in the NFL).

If you share 50% of your revenues, why would you find new revenue streams? Why not just take the money from the other teams?

 

[HckyFght*]

Thats the price the owners have to pay for cost certainty. The NFL does it the same way. the owners need to make a choice, cost certainty or player certainty.

The NFL drafts players and they make the big league club right away, their minor league is college. I'm seeing no relation at all. In the NHL, as in MLB, it takes many years of human and financial resources to then mold the player into something fit for the league. Also, who says the owners need to make a choice? If I'm an owner and you gave me that choice I'd think for oh, a nano second, and then decide on cost certainty. Players? they're not as precious a commodity as they would have you believe...oh! There goes another one now!
-HckyFght!

 

[me2]

In theory though, FA earlier may result in lower paydays for some guys as there will be more players on the market..

When you have only 2 or 3 30 goal scores on the market, their value is big... but if you add another 20 or so like you would if they became FA after 4 seasons, the overall value would go down of each player, and the paydays would get smaller..

Does that come with no arbitration and non-guaranteed contracts?

 

[Drury_Sakic]

It might,

But I have a hard time seeing the players give up either... even moreso if they have to take a low hard cap now..

I guess the owners could get it if they win an impass hearing..

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Im surprised Goodenow didnt say "we accept the NHL's profit sharing part of their offer" just like Bettman said "we accept the 24% rollback offer" and nothing else.

 

[free0717]

The NFL drafts players and they make the big league club right away, their minor league is college. I'm seeing no relation at all. In the NHL, as in MLB, it takes many years of human and financial resources to then mold the player into something fit for the league. Also, who says the owners need to make a choice? If I'm an owner and you gave me that choice I'd think for oh, a nano second, and then decide on cost certainty. Players? they're not as precious a commodity as they would have you believe...oh! There goes another one now!
-HckyFght!

Then in your opinion, the NHL should raise the draft age to 21. Let the colleges, Canadian Junior Leagues and Europe develop the players. The NHL teams can then have more of a sure thing(there is no such thing however drafting at 21 y o is less of a gamble than 18 y o). there will be less need for the NHL to supplement the AHL and ECHL. Maybe each team will be allowed 10-12 prospects under contract max.

 

[PecaFan]

Neither side wants large changes to unrestricted free agency.

The owners like it because they get exclusive rights for a good length of time, so they see some return on their investment in a player, and stable rosters are needed to keep the fans happy.

The players like it because they maintain the trickle of quality free agents, which drives up the price of them due to limited supply. Which raises everyone eventually.

Neither side would accept age 26, or 4 years as proposed.