ArizonaGreenTea
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2004
- 1,185
- 0
League-wide Player Compensation exceeds 55 percent of League-wide hockey revenues; or
With the kickback the player's salaries would be at 52% (going by Forbes' numbers). That's a thin margin, but assuming that this is a negotiation, it's a reasonable starting point.
The average of Club Payroll for highest three Payroll Clubs in the League is more than 33 percent higher than the average of Club Payroll for the lowest three Payroll Clubs in the League
Current Average for the top three teams (Detroit, New York, Dallas) is 77 million. After the 24% rollback it beomes 59 million.
Current Average for the bottom three teams is 30 million (Nashville, Minnesota, Florida), after the rollback it is 33 million.
At a difference of 44% the NHL's previous proposal was automatically triggered. Why would they start negotiations at a point where it would automatically kick in their cap proposal?
Any three Clubs each have Club Player Compensation in excess of $42 million
Three teams over 42 million, with a 24% percent rollback that would mean that at most three teams would be at or above 55 million in player expenses, nine teams are above that mark. Another condition that easily kicked it in for the owners.
League-wide average Player Compensation per Club exceeds $36.5 million.
According to the Forbes report the players accumulated 1.5 billion in salaries. So after the reduction the players make 1.14 billion in revenue. Divide by thirty and 38 million revenue per team! One out of four ain't bad, right?
I hope my numbers are wrong, but if they aren't Bettman did something I thought was beneath him. It makes me sick to even think I supported the owners.
I used the Forbes report to verify the numbers, if someone wishes to use the Levitt Report, fine. Though I sincerly doubt it would cast a brighter light on the proposal.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/10/04nhland.html