Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,594
- 580
most of you know my take on this mess. so i wont go into it.
if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.
since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?
1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.
this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.
if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)
also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.
anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.
look forward to thoughts from the other side.
dr
if you put a knife to my throat and told me if i accepted a % salary tie to revenue (the key point in this issue) i wouldnt be killed and you would give me one concession, this is it.
since the owners want a partnership in this, the players should be able to demand "revenue certainty". why shouldnt there be demands on the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ? shouldnt the players be allowed to ask the owners to guarantee a certain level of revenue ?
1) this also means the players dont have to trust the owners figures, they can negotiate with a level of trust .. because:
2) if the owners arent able to generate growing revenues, they pay a penalty to the players.
3) the owners wont be so likely to hide revenue if there is strict enough penalties. hey, they want to make the players live with strict cost certainty, the players should be allowed to ask for similar levels of strictness on how much "revenue" the owners must delare. if the owners arent really hiding any, then they better get on their horses and figure out how to market the NHL. isnt this what they are earning the profit for ? isnt this their role in the industry ? if i am a player, i would be demanding them pull their weight.
this is the same as the owners asking the players to guarantee their luxury tax offer. the players are saying, fine guarantee the revenue doesnt go down.
if the players negotiate a starting point of a % of 2.1b and then demand it a trigger to get out of the contract in 2 or 3 years if revenue isnt up to 2.5b (a negotiated #)
also, if revenue does grow to 2.5b, since this is a partnership, the player % also rises as the revenue grows. this means all parties share in OUR money.
anyhow ... you might be able to convince me to support the owners concept of "cost certainty" if they agree to a similary strict demand of "revenue certainty" from the players.
look forward to thoughts from the other side.
dr