cleduc said:
I reported what an agent stated on the radio. Obviously, the NHLPA has not "agreed" to it formally. Whether they have informally, depends on who you listen to. I also provided with my post the condition of my statement "If true,".
And, yes I feel it is a drop from the $42.5 cap because we all know that many teams will ultimately migrate to a cap number. Even if several don't, enough will that it boosts the average payroll and therefore, boosts the overall payroll expense to the league. In 2003-4, only Nashville was at $21.9 mil - the rest higher. With the 24% cut, only two teams were significantly below $22 mil so a floor of $22 mil isn't that significant (only $13 mil more than the 24% cut on 2003-4).
The biggest flaw in you design to verify the numbers is based on the the Fact that the 22 mil floor and the 54% linkage are both NHL suggested figures not based proven facts ..
That $22 mil could be raised significantly to get to true 54% spending for all teams, and it should be increased depending on the revenue sharing model in place.
The 54% could become 58% in negotiations closer to other sport leagues, which would change the figures again ..
Also the biggest discussion is team by team revenue in these meetings .. You are again basing your theory or supporting what the agent said based on total league declining .. Some markets will decline far greater then others .. A small market team might have its revenue drop 50% while a big market team only 10% due to the lockout .. Since the big market teams weighted impact on total league revenue is greater then the opposite is true in a declining view .. While a lost TV deal might equally effect all markets etc ..
If these meetings intenntions are to prove that exact point then the figures themselves would change again.team by team.
I see these figures simply as the starting point for current discussions ..
I was questioning your "
it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot" statement ... That is really is now a hindsight opinion or spilt mike argument .. Last time Goodenow tried that it was successful and the NHL caved and signed his CBA .. On actual results now show that, history this time is different then before, but certainly a point could be made for "IT WORKED BEFORE " .. and also the Goodenow speech expect 18-24 months tells me that he is not all that surprized at that outcome either ..
These leaked ranges do not prove or disprove your statement and you are adding to the PR machine like everyone else seems to ..compounded further by singling out only Goodenow .. The committee and they NHLPA during their own meeting came out supporting the NHLPA as a whole .. So they have just as much responsibility for a bluff that may not have succeeded last year ..