tantalum wrote:
But at some point it also ends up leading you off a cliff by not asking for it. To me if the players miss even one pay cheque they are leading themselves off the cliff as a very large proportion of the membership will not make that money back.
But you're making a big assumption that it won't be asked for by midnight Saturday.
As you've said yourself, the offers in these types of negotiations don't get serious until the last 48 hours or so.
tantalum wrote:
2. I think it's obvious that the current framework which is the framework the NHL is offering does not have the players miss out on future growth. They've done very well under this framework and will continue to see salary growth as revenues grow in a linkage system.
The growth they're missing out on is all relative to their current share of HRR.
If they're back at 50/50 by 2015, and league revenues are over $4B, they are missing out on the growth they otherwise would have gotten if their current share of the HRR remained.
That's not to say they should be entitled to that, but when an offer has you down at 46% by the end of the CBA, that's amounts to 20% less potential revenue for the PA than what they would get at 57%. To me, that's missing out on future growth.
Also, if the players accept 49%, revenues would have to be excellent for them to not lose money to escrow. While the PA's estimates are overly optimistic, Bettman today said he doesn't see revenues growing much next year. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
tantalum wrote:
Perhaps I will go point for point....yes there is the possibility of revenue growth thanks to new TV contracts etc. However, a very very very large chunk of the revenue growth under the current CBA was thanks to a strong canadian dollar. If that dollar wasn't strong the league would be in a whole world of hurt with even less healthy teams (likely NYR, leaves, Habs, Canucks as the only truly profitable one). Do I think that a dollar drop will wipe out everything? no I think TV contracts new revenues etc would off set it somewhat, but what you and I the league and players think will happen doesn't matter. The league can not and I would argue SHOULD not negotiate off a starting point that does not link salaries to a percentage of HRR. You need that safety net just in case something doesn't go according to plan. It's the insurance.
It doesn't matter if the growth has in large part been due to the Canadian dollar, the current economic climate remains favourable to the NHL's overall revenue, and is likely to remain that way in terms of the Canadian dollar for the next 5-6 years unless we see a significant change in the currency trend. In other words, while the Canadian dollar may falter a bit over the next 5-6 years, it's unlikely to fall to the crippling lows we saw over a decade ago.
Every business can be susceptible to cyclical economic and currency trends, but currently, the leagues' revenues and short-term outlook are positive, and should remain that way, with at least incremental growth, for the next 6 years. But if the economic climate changes drastically, that will be taken in consideration over the next round of CBA debates, but currently, there isn't much reason to point at the Canadian dollar to justify a large reduction in the players' HRR share.
tantalum wrote:
But as I think Pot may have mentioned it has less to do with the eventual system for the players and far more to do with trying to preserve any imbalance they can. They want to not have the risk of a paycut if revenues drop. They want to be able to sign a contract that pays them $27 mil the first year so teams can fight amongst themselves etc. All this other stuff is just a smokescreen.
Like I said, both sides are looking for any edge they can get in the new CBA, but the larger point is that the players are expected to give back in these negotiations, and they've conceded that they will in some form. The PA's worry, and it's a justifiable one, is that the NHL will use it's leverage with the cap to ask for concessions in every round of CBA negotiations, and the NHL's first offer symbolized that belief to a tee.
That's why they've taken a completely different position, and will not move off it unless they get something they want, whether that's more guarantees, loopholes, more UFA years etc. is remained to be seen.
But I really don't see that the PA has been all that stupid in their tactics, considering that the NHL has moved off it's own line on two occasions without directly negotiating the same framework.
If this lockout goes long, and the players lose a lot of money, and get a worse deal, then I'll concede that you've been right, but I think it's too early to assume that's going to be the case.