Jazz
Registered User
www.mojoradio.ca - click on LISTEN LIVE on the upper right....
host is former Canucks owner (until 1996) Arthur Griffiths.
host is former Canucks owner (until 1996) Arthur Griffiths.
vanlady said:If the NHL offer contains what he says it does, even I can live with it with a few tweaks.
Top Shelf said:What is he saying the offer contains?
Thanks for the info. Do you know if there is a floor in that proposal? Is the cap just a number or is it calculated as a percentage of revenue? Thanks.vanlady said:Cap at 42 million
50/50 split of all profits over 115 million
Arbitration to reamin with both side able to apply
3rd party auditing
The deal can be reopened at 4 years
The only problem he sees is the definition of revenue sharing. If it is not significant then as he put it, it doens't make sense for the players.
I would tweek it down to 3 years and have the books taken right out of the hands of the owners, like the NFL. Other than that I could live with that
By the way, this was supposedly delivered to the players on Friday.
shnagle said:Thanks for the info. Do you know if there is a floor in that proposal? Is the cap just a number or is it calculated as a percentage of revenue? Thanks.
Gee who have thunk it.vanlady said:Cap at 42 million
50/50 split of all profits over 115 million
Arbitration to reamin with both side able to apply
3rd party auditing
The deal can be reopened at 4 years
The only problem he sees is the definition of revenue sharing. If it is not significant then as he put it, it doens't make sense for the players.
I would tweek it down to 3 years and have the books taken right out of the hands of the owners, like the NFL. Other than that I could live with that
By the way, this was supposedly delivered to the players on Friday.
Thanks again for the info. If this is the deal being offfered than I think revenue sharing is certainly the key because without it all the small revenue teams are being thrown under the bus, financially speaking.vanlady said:The floor has not moved it is still 32 million. Griffiths made a point about Pittsburg not being able make the floor and if the can't they don't belong in the league. I can beleive this as he is an ex owner.
vanlady said:The floor has not moved it is still 32 million. Griffiths made a point about Pittsburg not being able make the floor and if the can't they don't belong in the league. I can beleive this as he is an ex owner.
The NHL has clearly stated that they will revenue share enough to allow all teams to meet the cap.shnagle said:Thanks again for the info. If this is the deal being offfered than I think revenue sharing is certainly the key because without it all the small revenue teams are being thrown under the bus, financially speaking.
shnagle said:Thanks again for the info. If this is the deal being offfered than I think revenue sharing is certainly the key because without it all the small revenue teams are being thrown under the bus, financially speaking.
vanlady said:Cap at 42 million
50/50 split of all profits over 115 million
Arbitration to reamin with both side able to apply
3rd party auditing
The deal can be reopened at 4 years
The only problem he sees is the definition of revenue sharing. If it is not significant then as he put it, it doens't make sense for the players.
I would tweek it down to 3 years and have the books taken right out of the hands of the owners, like the NFL. Other than that I could live with that
By the way, this was supposedly delivered to the players on Friday.
vanlady said:Cap at 42 million
50/50 split of all profits over 115 million
Arbitration to reamin with both side able to apply
3rd party auditing
The deal can be reopened at 4 years
likea said:Pittsburgh had a payroll of 34 million 3-4 years ago and they made money that year....
he said if teams like Pittsburgh and Carolina cannot make the low threshold they don't deserve to be in the NHL
he never said they could not make the 32 million cap...esp with playoff revenue sharing
Thunderstruck said:The NHL has clearly stated that they will revenue share enough to allow all teams to meet the cap.
Taranis_24 said:Seems viable, but raises a lot questions that would need to be answered first even for the league let alone the PA. If it was delivered on Friday I can see why it's taking the PA this long to look it over.
If teams lost money still do they have to pitch in any money to make up the $'s over $115M?
If only the teams making money how is the amount to the players decided by %? Ex. just using 2 teams? One team makes $100M profit and another makes $50M profit and all the other teams breaking even(just an example). Does each team earning a profit pitch in half of the extra $35M or is proportionate to profit for each team?
If there is money at the end of the season is the money distributed evenly to all players in the PA?
Will the PA want to put rules on what players get portions the money, ie: games played, experience...?
Umm...they'll be the ones sharing 50% of their profits.PepNCheese said:I'll believe it when I see it.
The teams that would be doing most of the sharing aren't terribly interested in the idea, from what I've seen so far.