me2 said:
http://www.nhlcbanews.com/cba_pres.ppt
That is their facts and figures. I'm still waiting for the NHLPA counter arguments. They should be interesting if they have any.
After looking over the report I have a few things that I'd put favorably towards the player's in a negotiation...
1) Last I heard (and I could be away out of date) the NHL was asking for a $31 million salary cap.
After getting the numbers from this report it looks to me like most other pro sports leagues pay between 55-65% of gross revenues to the players. This would put the salary cap at about 34-40 million per team.
2) Let's say I split the difference and have a hard cap at $37 million...
but 55% of the top third of teams revenues is about $46 million. So the rich teams are going to pocket an extra 9 million average (this is above what was considered fair market % in statement 1).
Your middle third would be ok with 65% of their total revenue just below $37 million.
Even at 65% bottom third would only be able to muster of about $29 million.
This means that a hard cap would cut the players out of about $170 million more than what's most people would considerable a reasonable percentage.
3) Brian Burke voiced an opinion that teams should pool and split evenly 1/3 of all revenues across the board (he also stated that this is much more than anyone of the owners is really interested in doing).
This would break down to about...
top third -7.5 million
middel third +1.5 million
bottom third +5.5 million
and even if all that money went into player salary it wouldn't make up for the differences mentioned in point 2 (you'd need about 45% revenue sharing to do that).
Basically I figure the real answer to this will be an unprecedent profit sharing or folding frachise or a combination of both.
As a fan what I'd like to see as a fan is reveune sharing at about 40% and whatever you loss in the revenue sharing is added to your salary cap. Also I wouldn't cry if a few teams got bought out and shut down(only American teams of course
).