Bad proposals

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by triggrman, Nov 18, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. triggrman

    triggrman Registered User

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    25,340
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Home Page:
    I think all of these are just as bad as the players proposal. I'm still with the owners in that I believe the system is broken and must be fixed but the only one of these that comes remotely close to a fair system is the hard cap. I think the best system is somewhere in between the hard cap and the players offer. The problem is neither side is ready to give a little to the other side. Reminds me of that country song about the tree that stood the longest was the one that was strong enough to bend. I know, I know, stupid Nashville fan and their country music quotes.....

    Owners proposals
     
  2. Old Hickory

    Old Hickory Guest

    http://nhlcbanews.com/dalymail/daly_mailbag111504.html
     
  3. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    IMO neither report is accurate, and the number fall somehwere in between. If I had to guess the true number are slightly closer to Forbes than the Levitt report.

    Accountants and CFO's get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the numbers say what the players/owners want.

    Before real numbers can be determined, there are a large number of philosophical questions that need to be answered.

    Questions such as:

    How much of the building naming rights get listed under hockey revenue ???
    How much of the revenue from luxury suite rental gets listed under hockey revenue ???

    How is it treated if for example:

    L.A. Kings "lost" $30 million over the course of 6 years, but the value of the franchise went up by $60 million ???

    There are a ton of other question like this that need to be determined long before true revenues/expenses can be determined.
     
  4. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest


    The players and owners never need to agree on what is or isn't revenue. Both sides simply need to negotiate a definition that is acceptable to both and adjust their target % based on how far off they believe the numbers are from reality. Once each side has their target, they can then negotiate to a settlement that falls somewhere between their targets or trade off a lower/higher % for favourable terms in other areas of the CBA.

    The give and take that is possible while negotiating under the umbrella of "cost certainty" allows for a multitude of possible outcomes, many of which could end up heavily favouring the players.

    Of course, this assumes that the PA will be smart enough to come to the table.
     
  5. John Flyers Fan

    John Flyers Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    22,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    If they don't define what revenues are/aren't then they can't negotiatie with the owners. the owners are looking to give the players 53% of revenues

    The question is 53% of what ???


    Now if you were goint to use a luxury tax system then defining what is, and what isn't considered hockey revenue would be far less important.
     
  6. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    The owners have spelled out their STARTING point for NEGOTIATIONS. No one on the owners side, not even in Bettman's wildest dreams, thinks they will come out the other end getting a system that uses their exact definition and their desired % if the players are smart enough to come to the table.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"