West
Registered User
me2 said:I think the owners $31m is a front. Its a dream situation for Bettman, and its a base point for scaring the NHLPA.
I would agree that the $31m is a dream solution to the owners problems.
The problem is that a team would need to have $48m in revenue for that to eqeal 65% of team revenues (based on other leagues/nhl doc) which is still a high percentage of total revenues. Also from the nhl doc it's pretty safe to assume that about a third of the NHL teams don't generate that kind of revenue.
So even if the NHL get's it's dream deal about a third of the NHL teams would still need some sort of revenue sharing to hit the cap and maintain a reasonable profit.
Also using the NHL's numbers $31 million is 50% of revenues (although I agree that this is likely just a bargining ploy) which would give the NHL players the worst deal in pro sports.
Just to clarify my point has never been that the owners don't need a new CBA or that there should be no salary cap just that without a very real (30%+) revenue sharing that the NHLPA does have a point that a salary cap is a no go issue. So if the owners are really serious about getting a deal done that has to be a given.
Given the aging population (young people spend more money on sports), the fact the NHL won't get as much TV money as before, and that in most markets tickets are overpriced and the trouble baseball has had bouncing back in non-traditional markets (or in other words Canada). I'd almost recommend that the NHLPA sign to a hard $31 cap with 50% revenue sharing among teams.
All the things above also make me wonder if $31m isn't very close to what the owners actually consider their best offer.
p.s. As the NHLPA I'd sign a 50% revenue sharing between teams with a dollar to dollar tax staring at $40m tommorrow and count myself lucky.
Last edited: