I in the Eye
Drop a ball it falls
- Dec 14, 2002
- 6,371
- 2,327
thinkwild said:Its reasonable for them to assume all of this risk. They are the risktaking capitalists. The players are the employees.
As you know, whenever any two parties come together to transact business of any kind, one side is always asking the other (either consciously or otherwise) to assume more or all of the risk...
In this case, between the NHL and NHLPA parties, the NHLPA wants the NHL to assume all of the risk... The NHLPA wants the player compensation (salary) to be both high and guaranteed - regardless of how well the players actually perform... The NHLPA wants the players to receive high compensation while having no discourse if the players don't perform to the level expected... In other words, the NHLPA wants the players to assume no risk... The NHLPA wants the 'NHL economy' to continue down a path that does not hold the player responsible for their performance... Some will argue (including the NHLPA) that in a 'free market economy' it's up to the owners to decide how high (or low) the salaries will be... But IMO, and I think history backs me up, regardless of how nice and fair this system seems in theory, overall player salaries always increase... regardless of actual player performance...
Thus, IMO, the owner's budget (their fixed cost) that they assign to player salaries needs to be controlled - with an upper limit capped... IMO, if the players don't want to assume any of the risk, they have no 'fairness' argument here... They should simply accept what the owners decide to do (whatever it is)... IMO, if the owners are the ones expected to absorb all of the risk - then it is reasonable for the owners to absorb all of the reward... If this is the way the NHLPA wants it, then IMO, the NHLPA shouldn't concern themselves at all with what the owners make, what the NHL and specific teams generate in revenue, etc... If this is the way the NHLPA wants it, IMO, the NHLPA should simply accept the salary that the owners decide that the players will be paid (in any system the owners decide)... and that's it... If the owners are the ones expected to assume all of the risk, then the owners should be expected to reap all of the rewards - and decide to pay the players whatever the owners want - in any system the owners want... IMO, there is nothing more to negotiate and discuss... If the NHLPA doesn't budge on the risk allocation factor - then **** the NHLPA and the players... they are being totally unreasonable...
If the owners are taking on all of the risk, they should be making as much profit as they want (i.e. the owners should decide how much of a reward they will reap for their risk - the owners should be the only ones who decide what their risk is worth) - and pay the players a much lower salary than the players are getting now - but just high enough that the players don't decide to play in Europe, in the WHA, in the AHL, etc. Just high enough to keep the players in the NHL... The level of risk should be correlated to the level of reward... Do you agree?
thinkwild said:Im still a little fuzzy on the distinction you are making between a variable cost and performance bonus.
It usually takes three rum and Cokes before I start to make sense
How player compensation works now is guaranteed base salary (fixed cost) + bonuses (fixed cost)... Bonuses imply that the player has done such a good job, that they deserve a 'bonus' above the base salary...
In my proposal, I break 'player compensation' down to guaranteed base salary (fixed cost) + a not guaranteed 'performance' salary (for lack of a better word) variable cost... This 'performance' salary component of compensation adjusts the player's overall salary depending on how well the player actually performed for the season - and how much money the franchise [I]actually [/I] made for the season... and because it is not a fixed cost, how much the player earns does not have an upper limit... The more revenue a franchise generates, the more salary the player has the potential to make... Yet, because this component of 'player compensation' is tied to revenue - this ensures that salaries don't escalate at a dangerous rate...
I don't like to use the word bonus, because to me, this implies 'gravy' and not 'meat and potatoes'... With a salary + bonus pay model, the base salary is high, and the bonus is lower (when compared to the base salary)... In my proposal, the 'performance' salary more accurately adjusts each players overall compensation based on how the players actually perform for the season... It's not a 'bonus' per se, but a 'salary adjuster' that takes each player's contribution (and the team's success) into account... In my proposal, the base salary (fixed cost) + the 'performance' salary (variable cost) = the players' meat and potatoes... and the 'team' performance (variable cost) = 'gravy'... In my proposal, players have lower base salaries (which are fixed costs) and much higher 'performance' salaries (which are variable costs - % of revenue generated)... and 'team performance' compensation (also a variable cost - % of revenue generated)...
I see the base salary as compensation for what the player has done in the past - as well as what the player has the potential to do... I see the 'performance' component of salary as compensation for what the player (and team) has ACTUALLY done... which is variable from year to year - and thus, the player compensation that pays players for their services rendered should also be variable from year to year... In good years - the players should be paid more... In bad years, the players should be paid less...
In my proposal, while the base fixed salary is 'capped' and lower (then salaries are now)... the player has the opportunity to make A LOT more money than they are now (IF the players and the team performs well - i.e. IF the players are willing to assume some of the risk!)... as the variable components are directly tied to actual performance AND team revenue... While the base salary component of player compensation is 'capped' and lower (and guaranteed)... the players overall earning potential is MUCH MUCH higher then it is even under the current system!
thinkwild said:How will this variable cost be determined? Sounds like you are saying by a judgement of what its worth, except in terms of a % of revenues.
Damn work!... I don't have time right now to finish my thoughts, respond to your other good points, or proofread what I wrote above... If what I wrote above isn't clear or doesn't make sense... my apologies... I look forward to responding and discussing this with you further at a later time (and perhaps date)...