CBA idea: Agreed 3rd party to figure out revenue

[trahans99]

Okay so the NHLPA and league have differences in there losses calculated. Why can't they agree on one person or firm to come with the league wide revenues and losses and then agree that the players should get 53% or 55% or whatever percent of the league wide revenues are and set that as a hard cap or soft cap (luxury tax).

For example if the 3rd party accounting firm comes up with the league wide revenues to be 2.1billion then players get 53% or whatever number agreed upon so the total league wide salaries would be 1.113 billion/30 teams = hard or soft cap at 37.1million.

I think the biggest problem is geting the revenues straight and then going from there.

This way if the league wide revenues were 1.8 billioin the players take a league wide average pay cut, if the league wide revenues grow to 3.0 billion than they all make more money. Doesn't that sound fair? Would the NHLPA agree to something like that if they could get the NUMBERS RIGHT.

Click to read more...

 

[SuperUnknown]

I'll do it for half of Bob Goodenow's salary.

 

[trahans99]

I'll do it for half of Bob Goodenow's salary.

I'd do it for free!

 

[ceber]

I've read here and elsewhere that it doesn't matter how revenues are calculated. The NHLPA is not willing to tie salaries to revenues.

Frankly, I don't blame them much. They're employees, not partners. I'm not so sure I'd want my salary tied to the revenue of the company I work for. (If revenues only went up and outpaced the cost of living I would, but that's a pretty big risk. Better to diversify your investments. )

 

[trahans99]

I've read here and elsewhere that it doesn't matter how revenues are calculated. The NHLPA is not willing to tie salaries to revenues.

Frankly, I don't blame them much. They're employees, not partners. I'm not so sure I'd want my salary tied to the revenue of the company I work for. (If revenues only went up and outpaced the cost of living I would, but that's a pretty big risk. Better to diversify your investments. )

I understand your point, but why can't they become partners. Look at the NFL, NBA and MLB (too a lesser extent). They should carry some of the risk too since they draw the money in, if they draw less in they should get paid less IMO. And its not like they can't afford for salaries to drop a few hundred k, there only making 1.8m ............ I'd be happy w/ 1m for 1 season and then could retire on the interest alone.

I think the NHLPA doen'st have a chjoice they are going to have to tie salaries to revenue or they won't be playing again.

 

[copperandblue]

What would a third party do to help this?

The NHL is clearly willing to define revenues because their proposals all require it.

The PA refuses to engage in any revenue defining negotiations. If the PA isn't willing to even discuss revenue then entering a third party into the process is pointless.

Frankly, I can't understand why even if there are disputes on the frame work of the CBA there isn't atleast on going talks or more realistically completed talks by both sides on what exactly constitutes revenue and what doesn't.

Or maybe it has been and it's simply a case of neither side talking about it....however I doubt it....

This whole debacle, in my mind, boils down to two seperate issues - the CBA itself and the definition of revenues. To me the are both equally crucial to a final solution.

Coming to an agreement on one at the eleventh hour isn't goingto save the season this year because the other will be just as contentious.

Atleast that is the way I see it right now.

 

[YellHockey*]

I'll do it for half of Bob Goodenow's salary.

I'd do it for free!

Right now, that's the same thing.