Nik? said:
I think the player has sort of struck at what's the fundamental problem with the league's position. What the last CBA has 100% conclusively proven is that adopting one set of rules and percentages for 30 separate businesses each with their own set of problems and circumstances just won't work.
Factually, that isn't what they did. The top revenue teams contribute to the bottom revenue teams. The Leafs contribute the most to revenue sharing. So there is a variable scale. As well, there is a cap floor which allows smaller market teams to spend less. Therefore, the percentages vary with each team.
Having said that, I agree that they should do more with revenue sharing to help but I'd lock the players out if they won't also share some that burden.
Now if they had tied the cap floor to the % of revenue growth rather than the fixed $16 mil spread, that would be a better formula for the smaller markets and one rule for all that could work pretty well financially - much better than where they are now. Offsetting that would be how much competitive balance would shift so they'd have to be careful on how far they go. But it's too extreme right now - they need to adjust the spread with some relationship to revenues - not a fixed $16 mil spread.
The notion one set of rules cannot be come up with to do a better job than the set they started out with seems flawed. In fact, this was largely known and anticipated when they started out with the current CBA but they had to start somewhere. They weren't going to get it 100% the first time as both the players and the revenue sharing contributors had to make significant concessions as it was to get as far as they did.
Now that it's been worked with, this time, they have numbers audited by both parties over the duration of this deal so there should be less bickering about the NHL facts vs the nonsense Goodenow made up. The solutions should be more obvious based upon proven numbers.
But here's a real problem I think the players will have trying to pitch your position: NBA revenues are about 43% higher than the NHL. NFL revenues are over 300% of the NHL's. Why should the NHL player be entitled to a bigger % of the revenue pie than the NBA or NFL players when he isn't drawing nearly as much revenue for his sport and therefore, the fixed costs per revenue dollar are very likely higher for the NHL? The Leafs and Habs may be making out like bandits but most NHL teams are not. It's not the Leafs nor Habs responsibility to exclusively carry the league.
When so many teams are having problems with their bottom lines in spite of respectable revenue growth, although significantly improved from the 2004 CBA, how can someone say "well keep your hands off 57% of the expense problem" with a straight face? It's not going to happen or if it does, there will be another lockout.
There are several adjustments needed to address the problems. Revenue sharing, the cap floor and the players 57% share of the revenue are obvious as some of them that need adjustment.
Beyond the dollars in a given year, the mantra of the players wanting to do what is best for their players in the future should consider what will happen to the sport if they get these smaller franchises on a better financial footing: they'll grow the sport and the league revenues longer term more than if they let the current situation persist.
