A Problem with Linkage

[krandor]

On this parking lot issue. If there is a parking lot that is part of the arena and part of the arena lease involves getting some money from that parking, then that parking should be part of revenue. Any parking lots or other businesses that are not on the grounds of the arena should not be included.

As for outsourcing merchendising - there is going to be a licensing fee required by the NHL for all merchendise. That fee at the least should be part of revenue. If you outsourse the store in the arena to another company to run, they are certainly not going to do that for free (same with consessions) so whatever money is included in that outsouring agreement should be considered revenue.

 

[Jobu]

No but in every company I have ever been a part of the budget is set according to revenues. The payroll makes up a specific proportion of the expenses...a proportion that indeed changes depending on the health of the company.

Haven't the players been saying this for months? Businesses all around the world set budgets based on their own discrete circumstances. Sometimes it is all revenue-related, sometimes not. Hockey owners can do the same.

The difference here is that the NHL is trying to get away from 30 distinct businesses and rid the financial competition between teams that is ruining half the league (no matter if it's Levitt or Forbes).

How is this any different from the market for fast food, gas, clothing, etc.? I don't see salary caps imposed on gas station attendants or retail salespeople.

Indeed the players want the league to treat this as one full business based on the extent of revenue sharing they want BUT do not want it to be treated as such when it comes to expenses.

No, the players couldn't care less about treating the league as one full business really. Their point is, if owners want to address the economic incongruency, they should revenue share. That should be the first issue explored, not the last. Players would be fine to treat each franchise independently, as they should be treated. It's a market.

Surely if the NHL was one pool of money and it was splt 30 ways, you wouldn't see the so-called problematic effects of certain teams ruining the market, would you?

But we forget one thing: The owners couldn't care less about equalizing anything. They want to maximize profits for themselves and share nothing. How to do that? Get the number one cost down as low as it can go.

To suggest the owners are trying to "fix the game" or have any altruistic motive is absurd. They want guaranteed profits. Great gig if you can get it.

Neither side can have it both ways and I think the NHL needs to revenue share more than what they are offering...

Indeed, something more than zero would be revolutionary.

that said the NHLPA gets no say in that part unless they participate in the one global business scheme on the other side of the balance sheet.

Well, this is fine in theory, but nothing the owners are interested in. Moreover, it's collusive in the context of collective bargaining. If owners want to share revenue, great, let's talk about that and ways to put a drag on expenses (e.g., rollbacks, luxury tax, etc.). Owners, simply, have a one-track interest.

And keep in mind that the NHL isn't asking for one payroll and every team that meets it. They ar e prepared to keep a payroll range that the players feel is important but in return you are going to get less revenue sharing because of that.

Gee, that's kind of them.

Yet many autoworkers get laid off on regular basis when tough time hits. THe NHL with a new system would like to prevent those layoffs. Sure they may still happen but not nearly to the same extent as going the current course or without major system modifications. We're talking the loss a couple teams versus the collapse of the entire league.

And if the NHLPA had any reason to believe that this was a real possibility, I am sure they would have a different view as regards protecting their constituents' jobs. Fact is, Bettman has virtually guaranteed no loss of franchises or jobs. Smart move.

Why? Because you have no response? The fact is the NHL isn't trying to **** the players. They are trying to give them a fair amount of the revenues. And the end result is that it will not affect these players lifestyles one bit.

Ahh, yes, the ol' jealously card. NHL players make more than I do, so they don't deserve millions and millions of dollars. Teh NHL isn't trying to screw the players? Yeah, okay.

A rollback that does not apply to half the membership. The other concessions were very very limited and in the end their were no major system changes.

A rollback that would save over one billion dollars to the league. The NHL was the party who countered with a rollback that would apply to less players.

As for the other concessions, how were these very limited? Are you trying to suggest to me that the owners would be unable to add more teeth to the luxury tax and guarantee two-way arbitration? If they were, you'd have a deal... and a pretty fair one considering the CBA we're coming off of.

Ahh the Forbes report which has no access to any books whatsoever. Forbes who routinely overestimates franchise worth. THE REPORT THAT STILL SAID THE LEAGUE WAS BLEEDING EXTREME AMOUNTS OF MONEY. THE REPORT THAT HAS HALF THE TEAM LOSING MONEY.

The NHLPA has recognized the financial straits of the league by offering an unprecedented rollback and other concessions. Those concessions would more than meet the needs of the league based on the Forbes report.

As for Levitt's access to the books, right, I am sure those were pristine.

If the NHL was so confident, why not hand all the books over to the players? Wait a second, they did that for a few teams and the NHLPA found rampant mis- and non-reporting.

And the fact is the NHLPA used the LEvitt number in there formal proposal of december 9th. They put down in writing that they accept those numbers not just in terms of the monetary value that rollback is but on the revenue sharing models they presented. They have validated the Levitt numbers by putting them down in the proposal...a proposal that could have become the legal CBA if the owners said yes.

They didn't validate anything. They proved that even based on the holy grail of the Levitt Report that their numbers would work.

Here's a nifty little thing. If it's in the CBA as it would be the owners would have to provide the auditor with all the data to do his job under penalty of law and league sanctions. THis whole trust thing is a complete smokescreen. Auditors can sniff out hidden money in a second.

I'm happy you believe it's that easy. Of course, it's fantasy.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. The NFL is the model league. The players are not underpaid in the slightest. The guaranteed contracts are somewhat of a concern except in the NHL that has been guaranteed over and over again. And besides the NFL players really don't have much of a problem with it. Do they want to negotiate some additional revenue streams to include in the calculation? Sure they do but they have NOTHING against the cap system at all.

NFL players aren't underpaid? What a joke. Teams earn $77m from TV contracts each. The salary cap is $75m.

Why is it a non-starter? You certainly didn't explain why.

Obviously you haven't been listening very carefully.

If the players want the owners to treat the revenues as global they have to be prepared to accept the other side of the coin as well.

So let's treat neither as global. Deal?

In the last NHL offer if the players didn't like how things were going (i.e. revenues did not recover to pre-lockout levels or exceed them) they had the right to unilaterally terminate the CBA after 4 years. That is a pretty good guarantee on the NHL's part that they believe the revenues will recover and the players will be making more than the first year of the new CBA and that the players will be treated fairly.

Let's give the owners the same right in the players' proposal. Deal?

 

[tantalum]

Haven't the players been saying this for months? Businesses all around the world set budgets based on their own discrete circumstances. Sometimes it is all revenue-related, sometimes not. Hockey owners can do the same.

The problem is they can not collectively get together and set a budget. Each team can yes but that ignores the fundamental thing that all 30 teams are, in effect) members of the same company. While they can get together and say we are going to share x% of revenues without CBA approval they can not say we are going to spend X amount on salary on a company basis without the collusion charge. Hence the reason the NHL wants it in the CBA.

How is this any different from the market for fast food, gas, clothing, etc.? I don't see salary caps imposed on gas station attendants or retail salespeople.

having worked in both those types of places I can tell you that there was indeed a "salary cap". It may have not been written in a CBA but there was definitely sure a maximum salary that management would pay...and that went for each individual employee as well as what the payroll was set at. If revenues went down so did the workforce and wages. TO use the NHLPA's term...a "triple cap". It exists. It isn't anything new. Indeed many companies including the one I currently work for have maximum salaries for positions (and minimums).

No, the players couldn't care less about treating the league as one full business really. Their point is, if owners want to address the economic incongruency, they should revenue share. That should be the first issue explored, not the last. Players would be fine to treat each franchise independently, as they should be treated. It's a market.

Except they have been banging that drum continually. It's a fair point that they want increased revenue sharing. BUT, with that comes a price at their end. A price they are unwilling to pay.

Surely if the NHL was one pool of money and it was splt 30 ways, you wouldn't see the so-called problematic effects of certain teams ruining the market, would you?

Ahh but here's the rub. They can not do that and then set a budget a team can't go over which would have to be done so that some teams do not take advantage of other teams...not without collusion.

But we forget one thing: The owners couldn't care less about equalizing anything. They want to maximize profits for themselves and share nothing. How to do that? Get the number one cost down as low as it can go.

Not true. I think the owners very much want to equalize things because in the end all 30 teams depend on each other. A healthy league improves the bottom line and improves franchise value. Do they want to maximize profits? Of course but in sports equalizing is often one of the best ways to do just that.

To suggest the owners are trying to "fix the game" or have any altruistic motive is absurd. They want guaranteed profits. Great gig if you can get it.

Not necessarily true. If revenues decrease but the percentage going to players stays the same teams may lose money as the overhead costs remain the same yet there is less money to pay those costs. Guaranteed profits? Perhaps but not necessarily and in the end in an industry that is paying out 50+% of revenue of payroll to a handful of players making exceptional money gets looked upon a little differently. Remember how much money these teams bring into communities in terms of restaurant revenues, jobs etc.. The number of people these teams employ and importance to a communtiy it is worth it to "guarantee" them some profits to keep them around. Heck many times the government will subsidize such important businesses to get them to stick around. It is better for all involved to guarantee profits. INdeed the NHL offered to share profits with players if this was what they were truly concerned with. The league wasn't only guranteeing ownership a share but the workforce as well as part of the "partnership".

Well, this is fine in theory, but nothing the owners are interested in. Moreover, it's collusive in the context of collective bargaining. If owners want to share revenue, great, let's talk about that and ways to put a drag on expenses (e.g., rollbacks, luxury tax, etc.). Owners, simply, have a one-track interest.

They have a one track interest to try in the best way possible to guarantee the survival of the industry. The league is in such trouble that other systems have been deemed too much of a risk. Would a tax work? Perhaps it would but there is no guarantee it would and that's the problem. Is that guarantee prsent under a cap? No but it's a lot closer than with a tax. The rollback in the end doesn't do much. It has nothing to do with the system and in the end is not particularily relevant.

Gee, that's kind of them.

Yes indeed it was. The players were concerned about not having that salary range and the NHL gave them that to negotiate as a concession. As well as the payroll floor.

And if the NHLPA had any reason to believe that this was a real possibility, I am sure they would have a different view as regards protecting their constituents' jobs. Fact is, Bettman has virtually guaranteed no loss of franchises or jobs. Smart move.

He has? how? Under a linkage system he has but he has done no such thing for a system that resembles the last one or for a luxury tax.

Ahh, yes, the ol' jealously card. NHL players make more than I do, so they don't deserve millions and millions of dollars. Teh NHL isn't trying to screw the players? Yeah, okay.

Do you now how much I make? How much my stock options are worth? Am I worth as much as many NHL players? No, but I'm very comfortable and will be for my entire life. But then again it isn't a jealousy thing at all. I don't begrudge them the money. They are the best at what they do in the world. I happily plunk down my money to watch the best hockey in the world. I think they deserve significant money based on how muc h the league makes. Indeed I'm saying they do deserve money that is very nearly what they make now. I'm saying they deserve to make more money if the industry grows. Yep I'm a jealous *******. I'm also saying that in order for me to be entertained and plunk down that money and for thousands of people to benefit (not just the players) and the communities to benefit the league needs to be healthy

A rollback that would save over one billion dollars to the league. The NHL was the party who countered with a rollback that would apply to less players.

The NHL wasn't particularly concerned with the lesser salaries. They wanted it to be applied to the hgiher end players. The salaries that have caused much of the problems between teams. But again as the NHL has said they do not begrudge the players the contracts they gave them. They will honour the existing contracts unless something is negotiated in the CBA. The players put it on the table you can't blame the owners for using it. When all is said and done I doubt you see that 24% rollback but perhaps more of a 10% one or so.

As for the other concessions, how were these very limited? Are you trying to suggest to me that the owners would be unable to add more teeth to the luxury tax and guarantee two-way arbitration? If they were, you'd have a deal... and a pretty fair one considering the CBA we're coming off of.

I'm not saying they couldn't. But can the same not be said of the players? Could they not expand that payroll range? Increase the cap? Get cap exemptions? Lower free agency? And make themselves a pretty nice deal as well...ike the NBA and NFL. What I'm saying is that the owners hold the cards in the negotiation not the players. Because of this the owners get to "choose" the system to be negotiated not the players. The owners get to receive the major concession from the players in the negotiation. The concession they've choosen is the system framework not arbitration, a rollback, free agency, or rookie caps. I'm saying the owners are sticking together, a sign that management isn't lying, and that the best deal for the players is now not the future.

The NHLPA has recognized the financial straits of the league by offering an unprecedented rollback and other concessions. Those concessions would more than meet the needs of the league based on the Forbes report.

Yes they matched the Levitt report. The same numbers they used in their formal CBA proposal for the revenue sharing aspect. They can no longer hide behind the Levitt report being wrong. They've embraced the numbers and acknowledged they are correct by using them in a potentially legal document.

As for Levitt's access to the books, right, I am sure those were pristine.

Levitt and his team looked at the number reported from all affiliated businesses according to the URO. They didn't just add up the numbers in the columns. They made estimates based on current revenue models (NBA and NFL) and determined that the numbers were accurate according to him. Forbes has another model which is acknowledged as being less accurate in all sports leagues. Others have used models that place the figure in between the two. The common denominator is that the league is loosing a bunch of money and a bunch of teams are in serious trouble. The conclusions are the same, but Levitt is the only one to have access to auditted statements. The PA could come up with their own model and show us why Levitt is wrong but they haven't. Because they couldn't and can't.

If the NHL was so confident, why not hand all the books over to the players? Wait a second, they did that for a few teams and the NHLPA found rampant mis- and non-reporting.

They are confident hence the reason for the INDEPENDENT auditor appointed jointly by the league and players. If the players were so confident that the numbers are cooked and revenues are being hidden why not accept 58% of the revenueso (or a $42 mil cap)? After all the only place for that cap to go is up once the auditor looks at the numbers.

They didn't validate anything. They proved that even based on the holy grail of the Levitt Report that their numbers would work.

Nope. They put those numbers in a legal proposal that could have been accepted. By doing that they accepted those numbers.

I'm happy you believe it's that easy. Of course, it's fantasy.

No actually it is easy. It's very easy for any competent auditor. An industry the size of the NHL along with the NHLPA will find the best in the business.

NFL players aren't underpaid? What a joke. Teams earn $77m from TV contracts each. The salary cap is $75m.

They aren't underpaid. They are paid exactly what they negotiated in the CBA to be paid. If they want additional revenue streams they negotiate those. The difference of course is that the NFLPA are willing to negotiate those things. In addition the NHL has already provided a guideline for what constitutes hockey revenue based on the URO's. It includes pretty much everything imaginable. Negotiate it. The NHL wants to negotiate it.

Obviously you haven't been listening very carefully.

Nope I listened very closely and the NHLPA has yet to provide any tangible reason for why it is such an evil thing.

So let's treat neither as global. Deal?

In order for that to work you have to get rid of the union and the CBA. Get rid of the comparisons, picking players for arbitration etc. etc. etc. Bring it back to the 1970's when the players WERE getting *****.

Let's give the owners the same right in the players' proposal. Deal?

Nope because as I mentioned it isn't the players holding the cards in the negotiation but the owners. The owners get to reap the rewards of the major concession in the negotiation. A pissing contest? sure but that's what CBA negotiation is all about.

 

[Jobu]

The problem is they can not collectively get together and set a budget. Each team can yes but that ignores the fundamental thing that all 30 teams are, in effect) members of the same company. While they can get together and say we are going to share x% of revenues without CBA approval they can not say we are going to spend X amount on salary on a company basis without the collusion charge. Hence the reason the NHL wants it in the CBA.

Who cares about setting a budget collectively? Even under the NHL's proposal there is still a range. Why do the players need to tell the owners what to spend? Why do the owners need to all spend the exact same amount?

Agree with the players to pool hockey-related revenues, split them 30 ways, and there you go. Even playing field.

having worked in both those types of places I can tell you that there was indeed a "salary cap". It may have not been written in a CBA but there was definitely sure a maximum salary that management would pay...and that went for each individual employee as well as what the payroll was set at. If revenues went down so did the workforce and wages. TO use the NHLPA's term...a "triple cap". It exists. It isn't anything new. Indeed many companies including the one I currently work for have maximum salaries for positions (and minimums).

So establish a maximum salary you are willing to pay. Easy. Implementing an artificial limit isn't necessary.

Except they have been banging that drum continually. It's a fair point that they want increased revenue sharing. BUT, with that comes a price at their end. A price they are unwilling to pay.

Didn't the players agree to slash their salaries by 24%?

[quote[
Ahh but here's the rub. They can not do that and then set a budget a team can't go over which would have to be done so that some teams do not take advantage of other teams...not without collusion. [/quote]

Each team is free to set its own budget. Why do all budgets need to be the same? With revenue sharing, they all have the same amount of money to spend, and so prudence would suggest that there is no need to agree on a league-wide budget.

Not true. I think the owners very much want to equalize things because in the end all 30 teams depend on each other. A healthy league improves the bottom line and improves franchise value. Do they want to maximize profits? Of course but in sports equalizing is often one of the best ways to do just that.

If the NHL would agree to split hockey revenues 30 ways equally, we wouldn't be having this work stoppage. The Torontos and Detroits of the world simply aren't interested.

Not necessarily true. If revenues decrease but the percentage going to players stays the same teams may lose money as the overhead costs remain the same yet there is less money to pay those costs. Guaranteed profits? Perhaps but not necessarily and in the end in an industry that is paying out 50+% of revenue of payroll to a handful of players making exceptional money gets looked upon a little differently. Remember how much money these teams bring into communities in terms of restaurant revenues, jobs etc.. The number of people these teams employ and importance to a communtiy it is worth it to "guarantee" them some profits to keep them around. Heck many times the government will subsidize such important businesses to get them to stick around. It is better for all involved to guarantee profits. INdeed the NHL offered to share profits with players if this was what they were truly concerned with. The league wasn't only guranteeing ownership a share but the workforce as well as part of the "partnership".

Contracts by and large are short-term. If revenues fall over a period of 2-3 years, prudent business managers would be expected to reduce labour costs.

They have a one track interest to try in the best way possible to guarantee the survival of the industry. The league is in such trouble that other systems have been deemed too much of a risk. Would a tax work? Perhaps it would but there is no guarantee it would and that's the problem. Is that guarantee prsent under a cap? No but it's a lot closer than with a tax. The rollback in the end doesn't do much. It has nothing to do with the system and in the end is not particularily relevant.

NHL owners only care about their own profits. In that regard, of course they care about the survival of the industry. But would Detroit or Toronto or any other of 12-15 teams out there care if 5-8 teams folded? Absolutely not.

He has? how? Under a linkage system he has but he has done no such thing for a system that resembles the last one or for a luxury tax.

Bettman has made promises to the BOG and to the media that no teams would be contracted.

Yes they matched the Levitt report. The same numbers they used in their formal CBA proposal for the revenue sharing aspect. They can no longer hide behind the Levitt report being wrong. They've embraced the numbers and acknowledged they are correct by using them in a potentially legal document.

I disagree vehemently. They used the numbers as an example. If you want Goodenow to admit the Levitt Report is accurate, it won't happen and hasn't happened.

They are confident hence the reason for the INDEPENDENT auditor appointed jointly by the league and players. If the players were so confident that the numbers are cooked and revenues are being hidden why not accept 58% of the revenueso (or a $42 mil cap)? After all the only place for that cap to go is up once the auditor looks at the numbers.

If the NHL is so confident, couldn't it have avoided much of this work stoppage by opening the books to the NHLPA for all teams 2-3 years ago?

Nope. They put those numbers in a legal proposal that could have been accepted. By doing that they accepted those numbers.

Wrong.

Nope because as I mentioned it isn't the players holding the cards in the negotiation but the owners. The owners get to reap the rewards of the major concession in the negotiation. A pissing contest? sure but that's what CBA negotiation is all about.

How to the owners hold all the cards? They're sitting with empty arenas and declining franchise values while players, despite their many concessions, still have acess to leagues around the world. If the owners held all the cards, we'd have been playing hockey long ago.

 

[dawgbone]

Players don't want a % of anything; they just want a market to dicate what they ought to be paid, whether that's $1m or $2m.

They would be getting a market to dicated what they are getting... except instead of individual team markets that skew the payscale towards the top end, they get a league wide market, a more true market if you will, based on the whole industry.

The point is, money should NOT be divided evenly or based on any percentage.

Why not?

 

[Jobu]

They would be getting a market to dicated what they are getting... except instead of individual team markets that skew the payscale towards the top end, they get a league wide market, a more true market if you will, based on the whole industry.

No, a leaguewide market would be splitting 100% of the revenues by 30 and giving teams that amount to work with. Owners don't want anything to do with that. To call an artificial salary-capped market a "true market" evidences your complete lack of comprehension of markets.

Why not?

Why?

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

No, a leaguewide market would be splitting 100% of the revenues by 30 and giving teams that amount to work with. Owners don't want anything to do with that. To call an artificial salary-capped market a "true market" evidences your complete lack of comprehension of markets.

Kind of contradict yourself in sentence two with what you said in sentence one don't you?

You're not the sharpest knife in the shed (are you an NHL plyer perchance?) but you are entertaining if anything!

:lol

 

[dakota]

To me parking is not hockey related revenue --- this is my opinion and it should not be part of revenue... sorry

 

[Jobu]

Kind of contradict yourself in sentence two with what you said in sentence one don't you?

You're not the sharpest knife in the shed (are you an NHL plyer perchance?) but you are entertaining if anything!

:lol

Where did I call 100% revenue sharing a "true market"? Clearly it's not. Nor would I be in favour of it, especially from a player's perspective. The point is, the owners don't care about exploring alternatives to the cap/linkage. They want the only foolproof way to ensure profitability. They can pretend otherwise, but that's all this is about.

Do you understand or do I need to make it clearer?

 

[Jobu]

To me parking is not hockey related revenue --- this is my opinion and it should not be part of revenue... sorry

Ok, thanks, we'll go with that.

 

[dakota]

Ok, thanks, we'll go with that.

why not go with that? it would allow you to link revenues... as this is why you dont like linkage these problematic revenue areas... go with the direct hockey revenues

 

[Jobu]

why not go with that?

Because if there was no hockey that parking lot would be empty. How is that any different from concessions, merchandise, or ticket revenues?

 

[dakota]

Because if there was no hockey that parking lot would be empty. How is that any different from concessions, merchandise, or ticket revenues?

if there was no hockey I am sure some other event would be there.. NBA trade show, something... i mean what is going on now in most arenas ... other things...

i dont have an answer for you... imo they are different... people buying a hockey jersey, or hockey tickets are different than parking revenues imo... i also think concessions should not be part of hockey revenues.. if i buy a hot dog i dont think that is hockey related...

 

[Jobu]

if there was no hockey I am sure some other event would be there.. NBA trade show, something... i mean what is going on now in most arenas ... other things...

Yeah, so don't share the revenues from parking at those events. Just like you don't share the revenues from ticket sales, concessions, or merchandise from NBA games or concerts. No one is suggesting that the players ought to share in these receipts.

 

[ScottyBowman]

if there was no hockey I am sure some other event would be there.. NBA trade show, something... i mean what is going on now in most arenas ... other things...

You'd think but it isn't the case. Teams aren't exactly filling their arenas with new events.

 

[dakota]

Yeah, so don't share the revenues from parking at those events. Just like you don't share the revenues from ticket sales, concessions, or merchandise from NBA games or concerts. No one is suggesting that the players ought to share in these receipts.

All i am saying is dont put it in the CBA if it causes the players to not want linkage... dont put these controversial streams of revenue in it.. just link it to defined hockey renvenues and up the percentage to the NHL NBA like 60% or whatever...

 

[Jobu]

All i am saying is dont put it in the CBA if it causes the players to not want linkage... dont put these controversial streams of revenue in it.. just link it to defined hockey renvenues and up the percentage to the NHL NBA like 60% or whatever...

It's in the players' interests to comprehensively and widely define the term. It is in the owners' interests to do the opposite. Therein lies the problem.

Of course, beyond this the concept has other flaws, which makes the issue even more complex.

 

[Cully9]

The point is, the owners don't care about exploring alternatives to the cap/linkage. They want the only foolproof way to ensure profitability. They can pretend otherwise, but that's all this is about.

As opposed to the altruistic motives the players have for their stance. How exactly are the owners any more to blame for not exploring alternatives to cap/linkage when the players won't explore a cap/linkage option?

 

[HckyFght*]

Isn't it great spending other people's money? Deciding what revenue they can keep and what you'll take and give to someone else?
-HckyFght!

 

[Sammy*]

The point is, the owners don't care about exploring alternatives to the cap/linkage. They want the only foolproof way to ensure profitability. They can pretend otherwise, but that's all this is about.

As opposed to the altruistic motives the players have for their stance. How exactly are the owners any more to blame for not exploring alternatives to cap/linkage when the players won't explore a cap/linkage option?

Oh, its easy, Jobu is an NLPA schill/sheep. Thats why.
Hey Jobu, if its so unfair what the owners have proposed, why doesnt the NHLPA just start up their own league, on the terms the NHLPA wants.

 

[thinkwild]

Isn't it great spending other people's money? Deciding what revenue they can keep and what you'll take and give to someone else?
-HckyFght!

Well again, everyone keeps saying this, but it is the owners, not the players, who are insisting that they enter into a partnership with the players and link the revenues.

If the owners want to split revenues with the players, isnt there an obligation to complete transparency? A fiduciary duty to maximize them?

If players are to be partners in revenue, shouldnt they get say in those revenues? To veto decisions the owners might make that would decrease them? Is this what Bettman means by partnership, that Goodenow is a 50-50 partner with Bettman in setting the course for the league and what owners can define as revenues? Goodenow forever sitting beside Bettman at the BoG table a an equal partner?

Or do they just want to put the players on a salary. That is a fair enough wish but why call it partnership and linking to revenues. If thats the best the union can do for the players, why have a union when they can have a marketplace by decertifying? If there was a free and open labour market, would owners make the decision to spend some of their parking lot money on players. Would they sell it to their brother-in-law cheap? I think they would. Unless they can link salaries to revenues and specifically exclude it, while hammering players for being greedy to demand it.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Like I said in another thread, linkage could be achieved without too many problems. There are specialists out there just waiting for that contract.

Basically, hockey revenue is anything that gets a high percentage of their revenues due to the games. The "fair share" of that revenue that has to be counted in many cases (where the team owners don't have to be the owners of the other entity, like the arena) depending on the fair market value, something that can be defined precisely by cost specialists.

 

[tantalum]

Just want to comment on the 100% revenue sharing idea. I have no real problem with 100% revenue sharing but that on it's own won't fix the system. The problem with the system is you have some markets willing to suck up a loss for a few years and explode their payroll. It affects the rest of the league. That truthfully won't change under just a revenue sharing platform. Yes the owners caused the mess etc etc but everyone knows some will continue to be irresponsible, a new owner will take over and want to make a big splash etc. The system needs checks and balances to guard against that. Budgets need to be similar so that bad decisions do not spiral and affect the entire league as they do now. Budgets need to be similar so that all teams are on an equal playing field when trying to acquire or sign talent.

A harsh tax MIGHT do that a cap SHOULD do that. As well revenue sharing does not guarantee money will come out of the salary system and stay out which needs to be done as well. You can't simply redistribute the revenue and expect to see anything other than inflation without serious safeguards.