Next move by the union?

Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by speeds, Feb 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    If I'm the players, my next move is to wait.

    Either that, or as an alternative, agree to everything the owners have asked for, a cap with linkage at total league revenues/30 per team limit (multiplied by whatever % the union wants to start at, say, 58%), BUT ONLY if the league agrees to 100% revenue sharing, which would require things like auditors, defining a dollar, etc.

    I would imagine the reason the players have never agreed to linkage is because they believe the owners will be "sneaky" with their revenue, and try to minimize wherever possible the amount that is considered "hockey revenue".

    I think this approach might work for the players because instead of having it be a battle of players vs. the owners with regards to what constitutes a dollar it can be a batle of each owner vs. each owner, as well as vs. the players.

    Meaning that if CHI tries to hide 3 mil in revenues from the players in a cap world without revenue sharing, the owners not only don't mind this they encourage it, because each dollar CHI hides is one less dollar for league total revenue and accordingly that's 58 cents saved by each team across the league.

    If you set it up with revenue sharing instead of no revenue sharing, now all of a sudden not only do the players want every dollar accounted for, but so do all 30 teams because each dollar in revenue that CHI hides is 3.3 cents gone from each team in revenue. It creates a way for the owners to police themselves instead of the players alone having to police them in an adversarial relationship, and that's why IMO the players are demanding revenue sharing be part of the CBA instead of Bettman's "well, we'll share what we think we need to share after a system is negotiated."

    The other good part about such a PA offer is that it gives the owners everything they want, so if/when the refuse it the players look better off. I'm not one that thinks that is particularly important, but it is kind of important anyways.

    Additionally, I don't think the players necessarily need it to be 100% rev. sharing, and quite frankly the large market owners would never go for it (nor should they) because it makes each team equally valuable. And how is that fair to the owners of the Rangers, Leafs, etc, who have spent more to acquire their franchise than has the Oilers group, or OTT, MIN, etc?

    But, if you got something like 50% revenue sharing then it allows the teams worth more to remain worth more, the teams worth less to remain worth less, and instead of a single cap number you could create a range more like the NHL's earlier offer of 32-42 mil (the range would actually be a %age, but I'll leave it in numbers as an example cause I think it's a bit easier to look at)
     
  2. Chili

    Chili Registered User

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,952
    Likes Received:
    351
    Trophy Points:
    124
    Location:
    Sugar Mountain
    I don't think 100% revenue sharing is a good idea. Teams still need the incentive to maximize revenues.

    Linkage and revenue sharing are both complicated but I think are both inevitable whether they are agreed to in the next agreement or a future one.

    As far as what the players should do, they will probably need to prepare for whichever direction the league decides to go in (i.e. replacement players). If they have the financial might to last another year, they'll be in no hurry to come to an agreement with anymore concessions unless the owners find a leverage point.

    The saddest part is that they need each other and it's hard to be optimistic at this point of the two sides coming to a negotiated agreement in the near future.
     
  3. Weary

    Weary Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,068
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think the NHLPA will wait now to see what happens with the NBA. What goes on there can't hurt them, but sure might help them.
     
  4. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    I happen to agree, it's not in the player's interest to actually have rev sharing at 100%, because there's not much incentive for teams to seek out that extra dollar of revenue. It's not in the large markets interest, because it damages their franchise value.

    But if I'm the union I might throw it out for a reaction anyways, or perhaps just start with something like 70% rev. sharing to get the ball rolling.
     
  5. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    If the players next proposal involves FULL linkage (or even a FULLY linked cap), we will have a deal.
     
  6. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    won't be linkage without revenue sharing
     
  7. Jaded-Fan

    Jaded-Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,774
    Likes Received:
    2,975
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Why not merely have very good auditing that the players can agree to, with stiff penalties for 'cheating'. There is no reason that owners should make equal profits. Some of the revenues should be shared leaguewide, but an owner in a large market should make more than an owner in a small market. That should keep the owners on board, and the players just have to pick the auditor and make sure that the penalties for fudging are harsh.
     
  8. trahans99

    trahans99 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,443
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Home of the 2005 Memorial Cup
    I thought the feb 2nd proposal by the owners had a joint auditing team?
     
  9. dedalus

    dedalus Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Home Page:
    That would be a nearly impossible offer for the league to turn down, IMO. If the players conceded everything and asked in return 50% revenue sharing, the concerns of the small markets would practically vanish.

    IMO that's an offer where the players land their 2/3 with relative ease. I'm not even sure Bettman wants to resist such an offer.
     
  10. Lil' Jimmy Norton*

    Lil' Jimmy Norton* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Professional Hack
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Replace Goodenow NOW !! He sold the boys down the river !!! They've lost 1.2 Billion for who ?? for what ?? a cap ......?! Like David Stern said "one of the biggest miscalculations in the history of sports" good job Bob !!!
     
  11. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    I agree, rev sharing would never be instituted at the 100% level, nor should it. I kind of just threw that in so the union can grandstand little bit if they feel like it; it isn't necessary though for them to even start at 100% revenue sharing, they could just pick a number (say, 75%). Teams need that incentive to continue finding sources of revenue, or they won't bother, and in a linked world that's as bad for teh players as it is for the owners (worse, actually, given the 53-55% figures bandied about).

    I think it's easier for the players to believe they aren't being cheated when it's also in each of the owners interests that the other teams not lie as well. Creates more of a partnership, and another way for the players to feel that they are less likely to be cheated.

    But yeah, teams shouldn't make the same profit, and they wouldn't in a 50-75% rev. sharing world. Would that be enough to protect franchise values for the big market teams while giving the small market teams a fair chance? Maybe, one would need to see the numbers.

    Yes it would hurt the leafs to have to share 50% of their revenue, but they'd also cut about 50% of their salary, so it's a bit of a tradeoff (though not a perfectly correlated one, I would suspect, simply from looking at the 50% number I just picked out of the air)
     
  12. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    I don't think TOR, NYR like that, but they need 8 votes. Would they have them? It depends on the financial numbers.

    In any case, if the union thought the owners would accept right away at 50%, then they'd have to start higher, at say 75-80%. If the players accept linkage they will want as much revenue sharing as possible while still giving the teams proper incentive to grow their revenues.
     
  13. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    Wait. League needs deal in May for draft, marketing, etc.... Players now can grab some items, will have a small form of leverage.

    Or the league skips the draft like nothing was there and the players are in for it. ALthough I dont thik the hotel rooms have been 'un-cancelled yet' have they?
     
  14. pacde

    pacde Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think your right and also some pretty nasty penalties for cheating
     
  15. Larionov

    Larionov Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    I would agree that the players have a small amount of leverage between now and May, but only insofar as the League will still be willing to bargain based roughly on their last offer. Once we start heading towards the Summer, however, and there is no deal on the horizon, then you will see the really ugly stuff get rolling -- impasse, implementation of a low cap with linkage, replacement players, strikes, lawsuits, the whole nine yards.

    So, the players can either agree to the owners' most recent offer until May, or face nuclear war. Given their history, I'm betting they dig their heels in and force the League to do this the hard way.
     
  16. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    What does Revenue Sharing have to do with Linkage?
     
  17. Larionov

    Larionov Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,572
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    111
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    Another rant -- I have never understood why the players claim to care so deeply about revenue sharing. Why is revenue sharing any of their business? Does Daniel Alfredsson revenue share with Chris Neil? Hell no, so why is it any of the 'PA's business whether or not the Rangers share with Nashville? I know what they are trying to do -- share the cash around so that more teams can afford more salary -- but they could easily work around that by having a floor on the cap as well as a ceiling.

    Once there is a new CBA in place, the teams will sort out the revenue sharing issue on their own. There is no way that the small market teams will stand back and watch the big boys raking it in without demanding some of the booty for themselves. That's an issue for the teams to sort out -- all the players are entitled to is their fair share of the overall revenues, which they could easily bargain collectively if they had any interest whatsoever in a true partnership. (For example, the league could be forced by make additional dollar-for-dollar payments to the player pension plan if overall salary percentage fell below a certain number.)
     
  18. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:


    (1) If it's in the CBA, then the owners can't change it on their own afterwards. If the players agree to enter a partnership they probably feel much safer knowing that the revenue sharing portion of their partnership is legally enforcable as part of the CBA, as opposed to Bettman's vague position that the owners will share revenue once a system is decided upon.

    (2) by putting revenue sharing into the CBA they effective link the owners together as well, so that all parties have an incentive for revenue to be properly accounted for.

    Just my guesses, I'm sure others have better reasons.
     
  19. Isles72

    Isles72 Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    3,688
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Location:
    Canada
    :huh:
     
  20. Beukeboom Fan

    Beukeboom Fan Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    14,107
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Home Page:
    I think the players want revenue sharing to make sure that as many of the teams are as close to the cap as possible. If they're substantial revenue sharing, more teams would be closer to the cap limit, which is what the players should be worried about. The players want to try and make sure that the big market $'s are redistributed to the small markets so the small markets can afford to pay the players more.

    Without linkage, there was no salary floor in the owners last offer. If the PA was smart, they would of been a hell of a lot more worried about including a salary floor at $30M than worried about trying to get the ceiling bumped up by $3M.
     
  21. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    players will agree to linkage if the owners will revenue share
     
  22. RangerBoy

    RangerBoy TRUST THE PROCESS

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    38,693
    Likes Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    231
    Location:
    New York
    Home Page:
  23. Egil

    Egil Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Messages:
    8,838
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    129
    Home Page:
    Your not giving me an answer. Why will the players only agree to linkage if the owners agree to revenue sharing?
     
  24. mr gib

    mr gib Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,853
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    rock and roller
    Location:
    vancouver
    Home Page:
    it was reported that in the meetings with the mediators that the owners took linkage off the table in a trade for a salary cap - it makes kinda sense that the nhl could get linkage back into the equation if they agreed to revenue share - although the posturing would dictate its back to square one - all offers off the table -
     
  25. speeds

    speeds Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    6,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    St.Albert
    Home Page:
    agreed. Additionally, significant revenue sharing should mean that all 30 teams stick around, even if it's because the "good" teams are propping up the "bad" ones.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"