tantalum wrote: Boston Canucker wrote:
Yes, as I thought, you have placed too much emphasis on the linkage and have imputed it as a long term point of the PA's proposal. The reason people aren't challenging it and the reason why the poster on the link you mention does not place importance on it - and the reason why Bettman does not define a distinction between cap and linkage cap system - is that it is not key to what the PA proposed long term (and let's face it, long term is the 4th year, that's it).
What's this now? no shit they didn't propose linkage. I never inputed anything as part of the PAs long term proposal. Which first of all wasn'[t long term. I inputed that because the linkage was removed such a proposal has no hope in hell of being a starting point.
BC said everything I was going to say.
Linkage and the % is clearly meant to be part of the negotiation, for example the PA would settle for 2 years of non-linked raises in the cap and a linked cap in year 4 of 52%. It is not a "non-starter", nobody is saying linkage is a non-starter, the PA is saying lets use the next few years to milk the high-revenue teams to benefit the low revenue teams, which is more important than settling on a
What you're also missing is that the option in year 4 is with the players. If revenues have dropped and the league reverts to the linkage cap, the cap will go down. So let's say league revenues go down over the next 3 years (something that has never happened in the NHL as far as I can tell in the Bettman era, see http://mirtle.blogspot.ca/2007/10/nhl-r ... ation.html
). The players will have seen the cap rise by a few percentage points each year, about half the cap raise we're seeing under the linkage model. After 3 years of raises of 2.8%, this CBA is over because the players won't exercise the option to go back to the current CBA. Hardly seems disastrous unless the League revenues drop enormously - which is unlikely thanks to the lucrative TV deal, increased gates in the big US markets, LA winning the Cup, NYR poised to go deep in the playoffs, Chicago's and Boston's recent wins, Philly's great future, the removal of Atlanta, etc. For the owners to have suffered at all under this model, the league's revenue growth must be less than 2.8% and teams must all spend to the cap. (I also note that as the cap has grown, the number of teams at the ceiling has decreased and the number of teams at the floor has substantially increased).
The other possibility is revenues continuing to increase at a pace greater than 2.8%. In this case, owners are pocketing a greater share of revenue, to the tune of $465 million over 3 years if current growth continues.
I think its a little bit of a stretch to suggest that the PA proposal isn't even a starting point. What if they negotiate to no raises in the cap for 3 years? Or a cap drop to $65 million and no raises for 3 years?
Under the "linkage" system, as more and more teams spend at the floor instead of the ceiling, the players aren't getting their 57%. By my math on capgeek they're barely over 50% of the reported league revenues of $3.3 billion. The players want to get closer to their linkage amount by encouraging spending by the weaker franchises, while capping the amount of the raises in the cap floor. I suspect this is going to be a very attractive prospect to the multitude of cap floor owners, because even under the League's proposal there is still potential for huge jumps in the cap floor if revenues continue to grow at 7-8%.