gc2005 said:
The Dec 9th proposal openly states that the NHL is reluctant to share revenue, therefore the PA is trying to work with lower dollar values that the players want. There were actually three different revenue sharing plans mentioned in that proposal, with the indication that the owners wouldn't like #2 or #3 because the amounts were too high.
If the NHLPA proposed (and by proposing, the NHL can accept and bind them to it) three caps:
1) $50 mil
2) $40 mil
3) $30 mil
which cap do you think the league would take ?
Goodenow
proposed three revenue sharing dollar levels with the lower revenue sharing naturally more appealing to
some teams in the league (the ones who would have to shell out the dough). The teams who would receive the dough probably don't mind the higher levels so much.
So under that isolated section, the two parties are not light years apart in formula, mechanism, or with a group of owners and certain conditions - dollar amounts. That's pretty darn good common ground and consensus in principle on that issue when one isolates on it. The key, as mentioned earlier in the thread and media, is dollar amounts. But even there, they're getting roughly close when Goodenow's proposal overlaps Bettman's numbers.
gc2005 said:
If they were in fact on the same page in terms of revenue sharing, Gary wouldn't have shot down that proposal in his famous "accidentally" leaked memo stating the league shouldn't share anything, except national TV deals and playoff money, i.e. take from Calgary to give to the Rangers.
The Goodenow proposal came from 30 concepts provided by the NHL to the NHLPA on how the NHL would be prepared to deal with the revenue sharing issue. Goodenow picked one pf them and worked it into his proposal.
Obviously, the supposed "leaked memo" wasn't one of them.
Again, the key point on this issue is that they have some substantial agreement in principle on how to handle it. they now need to haggle the dollars which are at least roughly in the same ball park of acceptance or Goodenow would not have offered close to Bettman's numbers as option #1.
gc2005 said:
It's a different world now. That proposal had no salary floor, and effectively, no real ceiling. Therefore Toronto could still spend a lot if they wanted, and Nashville could still spend very little.
Agreed. But it wasn't the revenue sharing that killed that deal though Bettman did some modification to it in his counter proposal. In fact, if the NHLPA had negotiated acceptable triggers, that Dec 9th deal would largely be in place right now.
gc2005 said:
Now we're looking at a range, with both a floor and a cap. If the PA is to accept a lower cap, you need to raise the floor. Raising the floor requires that the league share more revenue so that poor teams like Nashville have the ability to spend up to the floor while Toronto is chopped off of spending at the ceiling. Owners don't want to share, they want to watch their millions pile up.
I agree with increasing revenue sharing if you raise the floor.
However, only
some owners don't want to revenue share. Other owners would love to spent Toronto's money. That's part of the issue among the owners.
If every other facet of a deal proposed to the owners appealed to the owners, you know that it is very likely that the 10 bottom feeder owners will vote for as much revenue sharing as they can get their mitts on. There will also be a bunch in the middle who are not likely to be deeply affected over the next 6 years or the life of the deal. So it's really the top 10 revenue owners who will be clinging desperately to their pile of money as the rest of the owners and NHLPA try to tear it away from them - which excepting the NHLPA, they can do in a vote.
gc2005 said:
The 55% is still a random number. Owners could survive on 45% of $2.1 billion quite easily. They'd struggle with 45% of $1 billion, and get drunk on wealth with 45% of $3 or $4 billion.
As I stated: "roughly around 55%". There are fixed overheads, etc. so it isn't an absolutely linear relationship but you could cover that off with a profit sharing formula.