Exactly. So the owners won't make the concessions needed to ensure the long term health of the league. They expect the players to make those as well.e-townchamps said:
Last edited:
WHA resurrection
- Thread starter Owen Wilson
- Start date
- Status
me2
Go ahead foot
Weary said:
The owners offered up to $42,500,000 per team worth of "concessions". What are the players prepared to do to get that.
Saying that the most you'll pay in salary in the future is less than the current average is hardly a concession.me2 said:
me2
Go ahead foot
Weary said:
Just what is the average player earning this year? It'd be a heck of a lot lower than what the NHL is offering.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
me2 said:
Notice I said they didn't make concessions til a few days before the owners did. And yuou think the players didn't make any concessions?
This is what no concessions looks like:
No rollback, no salary drag, no team initiated arbitration, no change to the rookie salary structure, no changes period.
This is what concessions looked like:
24% rollback, luxury tax (negotiable numbers), team initiated arbitration (negotiable system), rookie salary cap (negotiable numbers). All 4 of which are massive changes to the system.
People act like the players WANT a luxury tax.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
me2 said:
You don't seem to understand. The players aren't worried about the current salary the owners are offering them. They're worried about the future salary that they'll receive. They're worried about the oppurtunity (or under the owners system, lack thereof) to better their situation in the future.
Tawnos said:
If they want better salaries in the future, agree to linkage and help grow the game.
It has proven quite successful for their brothers in the NFLPA and NBAPA, but the NHLPA doesn't seem to have noted this fact.
Chili
En boca cerrada no entran moscas
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,501
- 4,378
Someone may have already mentioned it but isn't this tournament around the same time as the Memorial Cup?
I used to skip NHL playoff games to watch the Memorial Cup, it won't be hard for me to make a choice between the CHL and WHA tournies.
I used to skip NHL playoff games to watch the Memorial Cup, it won't be hard for me to make a choice between the CHL and WHA tournies.
Help grow the game? When they stated they wanted to help they were told they would have no more input than auto factory workers.Thunderstruck said:
Both are leagues where the teams engage in extensive revenue sharing. The NHL owners don't want to do that. If the NHL wants linkage without revenue sharing, they should offer team-by-team linkage. Set individual caps for each team at 55% of that team's revenues.
No. I mean the owners expect any financing of 'competitive balance' to come from the players' pockets and not their own.AM said:
Weary said:
Resorting to blatant lies doesn't help your case.
They got the auto workers response when they tried to tell the owners what to do with the owners money and dictate the level of revenue sharing.
In fact, the owners CBA proposal contained the following clause #13
link
The players were clearly being offered a voice in how to grow the game.
Extensive? NFL maybe, but the NHL's revenue sharing is not that far below the NBA once they have to help get all teams to the cap minimum.
The NFL and NBA's collective bargaining agreements both dictate the levels of revenue sharing. Should they not have been dictating to the owners what level of revenue sharing is acceptable?Thunderstruck said:
Not unlike the last CBA where the owners gave the players a seat on the rules committee. BUt in the end Colin Campbell got the GMs still vote through rule changes that damaged the game. Having a voice doesn't matter when people aren't intelligent enough to listen.
The NBA shares 35% of its revenue. That would be about $700M on $2B worth of revenue for the NHL. The league's plan consisted of nowhere near that much revenue sharing.
txomisc
Registered User
ummWeary said:
Newsflash: The players money comes out of the owners pockets, too.
What the owners want to do is put less money in the players pockets.
txomisc
Registered User
Thank you, I wasn't sure but I thought that was a mistake. It is my opinion the players don't really want any more responsibility in growing the game. This is because with responsibility comes part of the blame when it fails and accountability.Thunderstruck said:
I think you misunderstood me. I said that "the owners expect any financing of 'competitive balance' to come from the players' pockets and not their own." Which is exactly the same thing you said. The owners want to put less money in the players' pockets and keep more in their own pockets.txomisc said:
I don't think we disagree on this point.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Thunderstruck said:
NHL's revenue sharing last year was 10%... the NBA's is more than triple that (35%). IF you're so sure the NHL has included revenue sharing that will bring the teams up to the minimum, why haven't seen anything concrete on those lines. If the owners want a partnership, they better damn well bring all elements of such a partnership to the table and so far they haven't.
CantHaveTkachev
Legends
Tawnos said:
Where has Bettman said no to revenue sharing? I don't recall him ever saying he won't have some sort of Revenue Sharing plan...
when the league countered a proposal in December, the cap was 34-38 mil correct? the only way i see every team in between those figures is by some Revenue sharing plan
txomisc
Registered User
To me, there is a difference between taking money from someones pockets and putting less money in someones pocket.Weary said:
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
e-townchamps said:
There's a tremendous difference between "not saying no" and "saying yes." Bettman is a lawyer, I'm sure he knows that.
The only way YOU see it happening is by revenue sharing, but until there's proof of it, you're asking everyone to go on conjecture. I'm sorry, but in negotiation, conjecture doesn't work.
So when taxes increase and your paycheck is less, you don't consider it money taken out of your pocket?txomisc said:
PecaFan
Registered User
Weary said:
Argh. I still can't believe people don't get this. The league collectively loses $100-$200 million dollars a year. Spreading the revenues around doesn't magically change this fact. It doesn't "stop any bleeding". It doesn't create profit out of loss.
If you made $10, and I lost $40, no matter how you spread things around, we're collectively going to lose $30 *no matter what*. Splitting it equally just changes the constituent numbers, not the totals. +15, -45. +5, -35. -10, -20.
Yes, because it is. The government is taking money that I have earned from my employer. The government is taking MY money out of MY pocket.Weary said:
If my employer decreases my wages, he is not taking money out of my pocket, because it was never my money to begin with. Now, if I don't think my employer is treating my fairly, I can look for another job that will pay me better...as can the players, of course...
I never said that spreading revenues around would make mathematics work differently. I said it in response to: "nothing here that limits the top 6 owners from their own stupidity and raising market value"PecaFan said:
If you want to stop the top revenue owners from outspending the others, all you have to do is make sure that all owners have equal revenues. That ensures no competitive advantage due to revenues.
PecaFan
Registered User
Weary said:
You offered up revenue sharing to the question "How does this stop the bleeding". The bleeding is the collective losing of a billion+ dollars over the last whatever number of years.
The only thing that will stop the bleeding is the *permanent* lowering of salaries. And this lockout won't be over until the PA accepts that.
- Status
