Wetcoaster said:
The NHLPA has proposed an inflationary system that will keep the gravy train rolling.
Why players wont accept a cap?
- Thread starter jcpenny
- Start date
- Status
The NHLPA has proposed an inflationary system that will keep the gravy train rolling.
Wetcoaster said:
Where did you come up with this idea? They care about giving themselves the best chance to compete for larger salaries. If the teams have to share revenue than more teams can pay them.
Wetcoaster said:
And who's best interest are they serving exactly? They are hardly an altruistic bunch when it comes to their earnings, and we shouldn't expect them to be. But reasonable? Yes, that can be expected.
And it promotes equality of opportunity. Is that not what bettman claims to want. How do you do that without significant revenue sharing?sabresfan65 said:
You could do it by setting the salary cap at a sufficiently low level but all that does is suppress salaries and guarantee enhanced profits even for idiots.
Not a system I would care to promote.
The Maltais Falcon
Registered User
More hackneyed PA boilerplate.Wetcoaster said:
All it takes is for a few deep-pocketed "idiots" (like, say, in New York and Washington and one or two other places) to screw everything up for the entire league. Once one second-liner gets $5 million in one of those places, second-liners everywhere - large market and small - want the same deal. Other markets have to pay the piper or face losing their season ticket holders. Arbitration and 110% qualifying offers compound the problem.
Some say the league can't have a cap because there isn't enough TV money to spread around. I say a cap makes sense precisely for that reason. The league's revenues aren't quite as stable and predictable as they are in a league with a lucrative, long-term contract. Linking salaries to revenues gives ownership some certainty over what their major cost will be, relative to what kind of revenues that will come in. Of course, the players want no part of this - they only want their salaries to go up, regardless of what happens to the league. Must be a nice world they live in.
And I've said it a million times, but I might as well say it again: a salary cap is not an "idiot-proof" system. Player costs are the major cost for an NHL team, but ~35% of their revenues still go to operating costs, which can't be enforcably linked to revenues. If revenues go down, so will player salaries, but operating costs will more or less stay where they are, potentially tipping teams back into the red.
Thunderstruck raised the point in this thread already, but I guess it needs to be raised again: why is it the NBA and NFL are able to come to consensus with their respective unions whenever it's time to open the books to determine revenues with a third-party auditor with little or no trouble, yet the NHL owners seem to possess some ancient mystical accounting mojo that will allow them to hoodwink the NHLPA and a jointly-selected auditor?
The NHL addressed the revenue sharing issue in their December proposal.
"In connection with our new economic system, as we have previously explained to you, we intend to implement meaningful revenue sharing by and between the Clubs. As you know, we previously provided you with an extensive description of concepts for enhanced revenue sharing -- including over 30 different models of potential revenue sharing scenarios. We reiterate our willingness to implement, in conjunction with a new economic system, an enhanced revenue sharing program that will allow the new system to operate as intended. Under our proposed approach, all 30 of our Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets), would be provided the ability to spend within the prescribed payroll range."
The Maltais Falcon said:
Simple the NFL and NBA do not have a history and culture of fraud, misrepresentation misappropriation on the part of ownership. The NHLPA has no reason to trust the owners and every reason not to.
According to Brian Burke on Thursday evening on CKNW radio there has been no real proposal for revenue sharing on the part of the NHL. Lots of concepts and no details.
Wetcoaster said:And the NHL owners are???????
No offence there bud, but when someone makes a silly comment and I point it out, it hardly means I feel other people are less so. I mean, really... is that necessary?
Wetcoaster said:
Hey... this is the second time I've read you quoting Burke. Sllloooowly you are coming over to the dark side.
It seems the NHL isn't doing all that it can to make things work... and I would certainly like to see some kind of revenue sharing, mostly because it would make the league as a whole stronger... not because it's necessary for this CBA.
Where do you get the idea that the NBA and NFL are so clean? There is some kind of genetic disorder that draws criminals to purchase hockey teams? Hmmm maybe you're onto something there.
Buffaloed
webmaster
I suspect the NHLPA will accept a cap if it's done in way where the owners can't cheat and they have a voice in it. A cap solution has to be built on trust. There's a long history of the owners being crooks, past and present. One can't blame the players for not trusting them. The current owner's proposal is predicated on a cap paying 53% of revenues. Fans are up in arms about how greedy these players are turning down 53%. But that 53% is taken out of what the owners consider to be revenues. It might only be 53% of 70% of what a reasonable person would consider hockey revenues.
What needs to be done to have a CBA with a cap:
1) NHL and NHLPA must define which streams of revenue constitute hockey revenue. They have to go right down the line with every item of revenue from ticket sales, suites, concessions, naming rights, parking etc. that an owner receives and agree to which items or percentage of those are to be considered hockey revenue.
2) NHL and NHLPA must agree on an accounting firm to tabulate that revenue. Both parties must agree to the accountant and the agreement must be renewed by both parties on an annual basis.
3) Total revenue sharing of those items agreed upon in (1).
If the NHL follows the above 3 conditions, the players can't refuse. If they do, I'm done trying to see their side of the story.
What needs to be done to have a CBA with a cap:
1) NHL and NHLPA must define which streams of revenue constitute hockey revenue. They have to go right down the line with every item of revenue from ticket sales, suites, concessions, naming rights, parking etc. that an owner receives and agree to which items or percentage of those are to be considered hockey revenue.
2) NHL and NHLPA must agree on an accounting firm to tabulate that revenue. Both parties must agree to the accountant and the agreement must be renewed by both parties on an annual basis.
3) Total revenue sharing of those items agreed upon in (1).
If the NHL follows the above 3 conditions, the players can't refuse. If they do, I'm done trying to see their side of the story.
quat said:Hey... this is the second time I've read you quoting Burke. Sllloooowly you are coming over to the dark side.
No. Burke is distancing himself from the Bettman negotiating strategy:
"If the league is intent on a hard cap with no salary arbitration, well, they aren't going to get that in my humble opinion... If that offer is all the league is prepared to do - and that's their perogative - then they should cancel the season now. It's a bleak day."
"At some point you have to go back to your caucus room and you say, 'Okay, guys, it's pretty clear to me that it may have been our goal, but we misread our opponent's opposition to it, so what's Plan B?' I think not putting meaningful revenue sharing on the table was a mistake, and I think not having a Plan B was a mistake."
"There has been no meaningful movement [from the owners in a year]... The players offer was transparent in that it wouldn't have changed anything in a systems way, but the fact is it was a record giveback of 24% in the history of pro sports league and they deserve credit for that much movement..."
"[The players offer] was an invitation to negotiate and the league should have sat down with it. I think the average Canadian sees that as a mistake, as a tactical error. Even if you know the 24% won't solve the problem it was certainly an invitation to negotiate and an admission the industry was in trouble. I think it could have been handled differently."
"At the end of the day... someone is going to have to pay for sorely misreading the position of the other side. I'm not sure who it is yet, but it's going to become clear as time goes on. It's very clear to me that both sides have underestimated the resolve of the other side."
"I'm not sure this is the right strategy to take because I'm worried about the cost of this battle. Can the league win? Can the league get what it wants? We'll see, but what about the cost to the industry? If you get a cap or cost certainty at a number you like but the revenues in the industry shrink by 50%, is that a good result? Is that a win? I don't think it is."
That was Brian Burke on Thursday.
Tom
Buffaloed
webmaster
Wetcoaster said:
Bill Wirtz was spared trial for conspiring with Alan Eagleson due to the expiration of the statute of limitations on the RICO statutes. Jeremy Jacobs changed the name of his company from Emprise to Delaware North after it was convicted of racketeering and a journalist reporting on it was murdered. No reason not to trust these guys.
Trottier
Very Random
Tom - After reading those words of logic and spirit of compromise, one can only come to a single conclusion:
Brian Burke, too, IS A BLEEPING IDIOT! Another loser blindly kissing up to the Union!
(Sarcasm on high, of course. Actually, would be interested in reading an anti-NHLPA poster's take on Burke's remarks...that is, one that addresses his comments, without impugning his charater.)
Brian Burke, too, IS A BLEEPING IDIOT! Another loser blindly kissing up to the Union!
(Sarcasm on high, of course. Actually, would be interested in reading an anti-NHLPA poster's take on Burke's remarks...that is, one that addresses his comments, without impugning his charater.)
Wetcoaster said:
Now I totally whole heartedly agree with this whole post, and the above comment. The problem is if they idiot proof the Owners, the are now in collusion and thus the players are going to sue.
The owners, and the NHL are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Biggest Canuck Fan said:
A budget is not collusion. Take the finacial control of your team out of the hands of the "hockey guys" and put it in the hands of a business professional and things will turn around.
If you design an idiot proof system, you are sure to get a system run by idiots.
Even if there was revenue transparency by the owners, which probably would now incite players to limiting their potential income to a share of direct revenues for the good of the sport, there is still a matter of how you allocate it. If the money isnt shared equally, 54% going to players will mean some teams are spending a higher percentage and some teams a much lower. Which to me still leads to a undebated question: How much payroll and revenue disparity is acceptable?
Even if there was revenue transparency by the owners, which probably would now incite players to limiting their potential income to a share of direct revenues for the good of the sport, there is still a matter of how you allocate it. If the money isnt shared equally, 54% going to players will mean some teams are spending a higher percentage and some teams a much lower. Which to me still leads to a undebated question: How much payroll and revenue disparity is acceptable?
Buffaloed
webmaster
thinkwild said:
As far as my last post is concerned, the identified revenues by the NHL and NHLPA for determing the cap would we shared equally among all 30 teams. It would be essentially the same as the NFL. And most of the people that whine about that'll be the end of dynasties, weren't even conscious of the last dynasty; the NY Islanders.
Tom_Benjamin said:
Actually I was refering to his much posted distain of Burke as a human being... er past GM of the Canucks.
I believe that comment was in reference to the existing negotiation rather than what would be best for the league. He was stating it would be best to let the fans know there would be no season because the NHL is refusing to move on these issues.
I agree that these are all valid criticisms of the NHL's negotiating team. However, I believe they want to make it absolutely certain to the players they are willing to go the distance. The players present an extremely uninted group, and anything that show the owners weakness of resolve would be exploited to it's maximum. I believe this is why the NHL has behaved as it has. If we look at 94, one thing is certain. The PA won that in a decisive way, and this negotiation has looked very similiar. A couple of ways it has differed, is now the length of the lockout and the fact the NHL isn't following "regular" negotiation behaviour. Frankly, that's all they have to convince the PA they are willing to lose the season and possibly more for what they see as a necessary "idiological change" in the new CBA.
I agree with you that this isn't about setting up for replacement players.
By the way, are you Trevor Linden? You seem to write in a similar way to Trevor, also come from a position that your are equally as convinced of.
vanlady said:
Except for the fact that hockey teams don't just have "keeping a budget" as their only goal. Some of them even want to win the Stanley Cup. No one praises teams for consistently turning a profit.
This is why the NHL fights for cost certainty now. In collective bargaining, it is the only time that they can mandate a budget throughout the league.
Considering the PA is free to "manage" contract negotiations in a collusive manner, telling agents which players will file for arbitration and which salaries are to be used as comparison, it's hardly out of line for the owners of the business to team up the one and only time they are allowed to -- in collective bargaining.
quat said:
Why not all finacial stratagies and marketing will work in every market. For example lottery revenue works well in Vancouver, but will it work the same in Carolina.
Buffaloed said:
Well even though I think Det and Col can be considered 30 team league dynasties, I agree such a sharing by the NHL would seem to make it hard for the building and maintaining of great teams that achieve success, whether or not they are a dynasty. And give little incentive for bad teams to do anything smart and bold
But what you are suggesting would seem to be impossible for the owners to do. Each franchise would have to have the same value wouldnt it? The incentive to improve the businesses. THere is no way they would share all the revenues equally. So if the player share is going to be 54% of all true revenues, and they wont 100% revenue share, how will they allocate it.
Wetcoaster said:
if you dont let idiots into your business, whos going to buy the teams? smart businessmen dont usually invest into an industry that have a long history of losing money. the nhl need these idiots
i also dont see how a cap will limit players earning ability. for example, if crosby comes into the league and score 100G 200A and 300P, he can still demand $15M or $20M, can he not? he can still goto arbitration to get the 'market value' right? or he can still hold out and force the team to either sign him to his demand or trade him?
quat said:
No, I'm Tom Benjamin. Thinking I might be Trevor is one of the nicest things anyone has ever said about me. Thanks.
Tom
Last edited:
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 1Staked: $135.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 1Staked: $10.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
