The League Owes the Players Money
- Thread starter Charge_Seven
- Start date
GKJ
Global Moderator
- Feb 27, 2002
- 186,918
- 39,011
I'm not surprised at all. That rollback the players took will drop now that they're getting some money back. Players' salaries stop for the playoffs, the owners gain all of that money and now have to fork some up. Further proves that the owners' irresponsibility was the main cause of the #1 cause lockout.
I didn't even think the owners denied that. It was quite clear that the problem was mismanagement. They may argue that the players forced the mismanagement in negotiations, but in the end only the owners/gms wrote the ridiculous cheques to the players.
gooseman
Registered User
This is a surprise how? That is how the system was designed. Tf revenues are lower than the amount spent of salaries the players lose part of their escrow. If revenues are higher than the paid contracts, the owners owe the players. This is a non-story, the situation has been known for months. I actually was under the understanding that checks had already been distributed for the players share of revenue sharing, but it could be that it was only notice that final calculations were still pending.
If the players share is $35-$40 million, that actually means that the league and PA made a fairly good guess at where to put the cap last year because overall revenues, and particularly attendance revenues were higher than expected because we came back in droves like the hockey starved sheep we were, and the $50 million that was gained from the OLN contract was not included in the guess about where to put the cap.
If the players share is $35-$40 million, that actually means that the league and PA made a fairly good guess at where to put the cap last year because overall revenues, and particularly attendance revenues were higher than expected because we came back in droves like the hockey starved sheep we were, and the $50 million that was gained from the OLN contract was not included in the guess about where to put the cap.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
The problem with the old system was not that really mismanagement on the whole - it was (arguably) mismanagement by some of the owners and the huge disparity of revenues between teams that allowed some owners to overspend (bad management or just ego and not caring about making a profit) and that screwed over all the teams, even those that tried for sane fiscal management, by leading to an unsustainable escalation of salaries, which the players, their agents, and the NHLPA was perfectly happy to exploit.
Don't argue that the league (or other teams) should have done something about it - they could not. It would be blatantly illegal and a violation of anti trust law for the league or the teams to act in concert to do anything that would have put a restraint on salaries. Bettman could not just tell the Rangers or Toronto or Detroit or <insert your favorite big-market whipping boy hers> to spend less. The only time the league and the teams could legally act together without collusion and anti-trust charges was during the CBA process - which they finally did.
That is why there was a lockout.
why bother?
If they didnt listen the whole of a year to the arguement, they wont listen now.
If they didnt listen the whole of a year to the arguement, they wont listen now.
It's kind of like the NHL didn't turn enough tricks, and the NHLPA has threatened them with a pimp smack.
gooseman
Registered User
I continue to hear that same argument: that the owners just can't control themselves, over and over, and I just don't understand. Do people not follow past events? Baseball attempted a unilateral movement as they suggest. The results were very clear. A handful of owners, especially one in NY took advantage of most of the rest of the league closing their wallets, and the players went to court and won a very one-siding ruling that said exactly what you just restate, it was an illegal act of collusion and cost them a lot of money. It must be done through a CBA process or it is illegal.
hey, why let facts get in the way of a good vent?
I don't really love the cap, but without it we will have the same 10 big spending teams in the playoffs every year. That leaves the rest of the league waiting to get lucky with a hot goalie in a playoff year, but they can't really contend on a consistent basis. The new system gives each franchise a much more equal opportunity to compete--and puts more pressure on management.
bones21212
Registered User
are you sure the playoff revenue counts into it? just thought id ask, because i have no clue.
If the NHL got the players to sign a deal that left playoff revenues out of the 54%, then bravo to them, as the playoffs are worth a large sum of money.
Ted Hoffman
The other Rick Zombo
- Dec 15, 2002
- 29,206
- 8,616
Adobe Acrobat Reader is getting a workout tonight ...
Answer: yes. And before anyone else asks, revenue from preseason games is included as well.
bones21212
Registered User
cool....thanx.
by the way irish....i saw your team salary/cap hits list last night....damned good job man!!!!!
by the way irish....i saw your team salary/cap hits list last night....damned good job man!!!!!
Yes. Playoffs are included. Otherwise teams would just shift revenues from the regular season to the playoffs (e.g. for telecasts) and then claim regular season poverty.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Yes, playoff revenues are included in the HRR and the players (as a whole) get their 54%, but the players themselves don't get paid during the playoffs - the individual teams rake in the playoff $$$'s without any additional player payroll expenses.
Playoff revenues are only really reflected in 1) escrow accounting at the end of the season and 2) setting the cap/midpoint/floor the next season.
Playoff revenues are only really reflected in 1) escrow accounting at the end of the season and 2) setting the cap/midpoint/floor the next season.
