There are always other options than just 'revenue'.

I get the same question asked when I say the cap shouldn't be linked to revenues.

How about if the owners instituted a one-time payout (anything that is owed after players get paid their 50% hrr) out of their own pockets?

Wouldn't that solution make the players 'whole' AND allow the 50/50 split to still work?
- Pen15

Then it wouldn't be a 50/50 split.

EK is an idiot... but I guess I'm the idiot because I keep reading his blogs.

Afraid......Fehr......nowwww I get it! Ek, you're sooo witty!

Well, yes....and no.

Under the last CBA, lost escrow money was gone for ever.

Under the current NHL proposal, you'd eventually see some of it back.

Old system: players pay owners.

Proposed new system: players pay owners, owners pay some back later.

It's something that becomes more relevant as this season continues to be shortened, and HRR revenues are shrinking faster than Toskala's save percentage.
- Atomic Wedgie

The only problem with this is that escrow comes from the players to start. Even in the prior CBA, while "lost" escrow was gone forever, the part of escrow that wasn't lost was still what the players had put in; it wasn't new money they hadn't previously received unless at the end they got less than their share of HRR - at which point the owners had to kick in to make things good.

The only change is that you're suggesting part of the "lost" money goes to the players as well. Fehr has already argued that this is the players paying themselves, and he's against that (namely, because he thinks the players shouldn't have to give up anything anyway and should receive the full value of their contracted salaries, 2005-2012 be damned).

Could that happen? Sure - but that requires the NHLPA to change its position on the subject. Right now, I wouldn't hold my breath.

http://news.nationalpost....-the-wooden-hockey-stick/

Sherwood 5030? Pffffft.

Bring back the Canadien 6001.

Excellent point.

One of the biggest fallacies I see people make on here (and the players are making it everytime they step into negotiations), is that they are trying to negotiate off of the last CBA - which is expired.

What they need to do imo, is open their ears and listen to the problems of the league, and work toward addressing them. And if that means taking a pay cut, then so be it....because with no CBA in place, the players share is currently 0%.
- Pen15

...or is their share actually 100%? Both are meaningless statements and the reality is that, of course, these 'negotiations' are working from the expired CBA -- from both sides. It's not a vacuum.

One of the biggest fallacies I see people make on here (and the players are making it everytime they step into negotiations), is that they are trying to negotiate off of the last CBA - which is expired.
- Pen15

You have to start from somewhere when you go to the negotiating table to work on a new deal. You can either start from where things have been (the prior CBA) or start completely from scratch. One of those two is easier to work from.

an agreement will be made before December 1 (at the latest)... wouldnt be shocked if something big came out of the meeting today...

Since when is Bettman a hockey guy? They don't even make sticks small enough for that little pip squeak. The owners should be scared of Bettman more than Fehr. Like you said Fehr will do what the players want if they decide to cave to Bettman.

And what do the players have to do with Molson as a sponsor?
- Pen15

Directly nothing. But indirectly just as I said in the original post you replied to. The more sponsorship money the NHL takes in, the more in the revenue pot to split up betwen the League and the players.

If "rolled back" = "dramatically increased escrow, which results in a de facto reduction in salaries for at least 2012-13 and probably 2013-14" then you're right. If "rolled back" = "actual cut on salaries stated in contracts on the books," then no ... they can go to 50/50 without cutting any salaries.

The real problem with each side's proposal is this: the owners want 50/50 immediately, and won't entertain 57/43 for the players that eventually gets to 50/50 (even if it swings to something like 48/52 for the owners in a couple years to even out in aggregate). The players want nothing less than the $1.883B they got last year, and want 1.75% increases each year off of that amount starting in '12-13. Until someone budges, there's no way to create anything that bridges that gap and makes any kind of sense.
- Irish Blues

I'm not aware of any way to get to 50/50 without cutting salaries.

Excellent point.

One of the biggest fallacies I see people make on here (and the players are making it everytime they step into negotiations), is that they are trying to negotiate off of the last CBA - which is expired.

What they need to do imo, is open their ears and listen to the problems of the league, and work toward addressing them. And if that means taking a pay cut, then so be it....because with no CBA in place, the players share is currently 0%.
- Pen15

It's not a fallacy at all. The only place it is a fallacy is here on Hockeybuzz. Both sides, the players and the League, have used the numbers that were the result of the last CBA in the proposals. Both sides have negotiated off of the last CBA.

And we need to go back to one of the most basic principals of this entire process to address your second paragraph. And that is with the League taking in record revenue, why do the players have to pay the entire bill to solve the problems of the League?

It's not a fallacy at all. The only place it is a fallacy is here on Hockeybuzz. Both sides, the players and the League, have used the numbers that were the result of the last CBA in the proposals. Both sides have negotiated off of the last CBA.

And we need to go back to one of the most basic principals of this entire process to address your second paragraph. And that is with the League taking in record revenue, why do the players have to pay the entire bill to solve the problems of the League?
- MJL

They don't, and they're not. They've been getting a higher share than they really should have been getting. They just need to stop getting more money than they should be. That's not them paying for it. That's just stopping them from collecting the money that should have been going towards these things for a few years now. They've taken too much of it already. Time to put it to an end.

They don't, and they're not. They've been getting a higher share than they really should have been getting. They just need to stop getting more money than they should be. That's not them paying for it. That's just stopping them from collecting the money that should have been going towards these things for a few years now. They've taken too much of it already. Time to put it to an end.
- prock

They haven't taken too much of it. The precentage was a result of what the Owners want in the CBA. And if the Owners got everything they wanted in this new CBA, they would indeed have the players footing the entire bill. And it would indeed be the players paying for it. I agree that the players need to take a lesser share, as long as current contracts are honored. Which again is a fundamental part of this negotiation.

They haven't taken too much of it. The precentage was a result of what the Owners want in the CBA. And if the Owners got everything they wanted in this new CBA, they would indeed have the players footing the entire bill. And it would indeed be the players paying for it. I agree that the players need to take a lesser share, as long as current contracts are honored. Which again is a fundamental part of this negotiation.
- MJL

You don't think they would have wanted 50% in the last CBA?

You don't think they would have wanted 50% in the last CBA?
- prock

What the Owners wanted and got, was the Cap linked to revenue growth. It didn't turn out so good for them.

What the Owners wanted and got, was the Cap linked to revenue growth. It didn't turn out so good for them.
- MJL

I see, so they would have said no to 50%.

I see, so they would have said no to 50%.
- prock

I didn't say that. We can speculate all we want on the owners MIGHT have agreed to. Or we can use what they wanted and got in the last CBA, as a sure way of knowing what they wanted then.

Not true at all. Sponsors increase Revenue for the League. The more revenue the League makes, the more the players make.
- MJL

players may be affected by loss of sponsors if the owners choose to temper spending because of this..but they certainly dont suffer in terms of a direct correlation.

once again u missed the point. owners take all the risk, pay all the expenses and a good portion of them are losing money..none of the players can say the same.

any pressure from sponsors to get this done would be welcomed by the players as it only puts the owners in a corner.
this wouldnt be a case of reebok threatening to pull crosbys sponsorship

They've been getting a higher share than they really should have been getting.They don't, and they're not. They just need to stop getting more money than they should be. That's not them paying for it. That's just stopping them from collecting the money that should have been going towards these things for a few years now. They've taken too much of it already. Time to put it to an end.
- prock

this

harping on record revenues..fehr has this dude mesmerised.

this makes no difference to cbj or phx. they are bleeding money and it needs to stop. it's gotta come from somewhere.
at this point, none of it has come from the players. everythings gravy for them. and this is not ok when some of the owners signing there checks are struggling.

so they locked the players out until we have a far better balance.

I didn't say that. We can speculate all we want on the owners MIGHT have agreed to. Or we can use what they wanted and got in the last CBA, as a sure way of knowing what they wanted then.
- MJL

How can you state that what they wanted is = what they got. We know they got some of what they wanted. You're assuming they got everything they wanted. You're speculating what they wanted.

this

harping on record revenues..fehr has this dude mesmerised.

this makes no difference to cbj or phx. they are bleeding money and it needs to stop. it's gotta come from somewhere.
at this point, none of it has come from the players. everythings gravy for them. and this is not ok when some of the owners signing there checks are struggling.

so they locked the players out until we have a far better balance.
- hugefemale dog77

Yeah, they call this "having these things taken away from them".

They never should have been getting it in the first place.

Count your blessings boys, you've been collecting too much off the gravy train for a few years now, hope you enjoyed it, but it's over.

players may be affected by loss of sponsors if the owners choose to temper spending because of this..but they certainly dont suffer in terms of a direct correlation.

once again u missed the point. owners take all the risk, pay all the expenses and a good portion of them are losing money..none of the players can say the same.

any pressure from sponsors to get this done would be welcomed by the players as it only puts the owners in a corner.
this wouldnt be a case of reebok threatening to pull crosbys sponsorship
- hugefemale dog77

I didn't miss anything. The players absolutely suffer in terms of a direct correlation, as the less sponsor money coming in, the less is in the revenue pool to divide up. And it especially has a direct correlation if the HRR agreement is linked to revenue in any way. Which the Owners current Make Whole agreement is.
I agree that outside sponsor pressure on the League could benefit the players.

How can you state that what they wanted is = what they got. We know they got some of what they wanted. You're assuming they got everything they wanted. You're speculating what they wanted.
- prock

No, I'm not assuming that at all. It's well documented that the League wanted a Salary Cap linked to revenue, and a salary rollback for the players in the last CBA.

this

harping on record revenues..fehr has this dude mesmerised.

this makes no difference to cbj or phx. they are bleeding money and it needs to stop. it's gotta come from somewhere.
at this point, none of it has come from the players. everythings gravy for them. and this is not ok when some of the owners signing there checks are struggling.

so they locked the players out until we have a far better balance.
- hugefemale dog77

Your right it has to come from somewhere to help out the struggling teams. And both sides should come to an agreement to both share in fixing those issues, and helping out those teams. And if you think that the players should be the only side to have to pay for that, when the League took in record revenues, and with the checks that the Owners you reference are agreeing to write. Well then Bettman really has you mesmerized.