DinahMoeHumm Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Excerpt:The NHL's architect, Gary Bettman, discovered his own glitch in the Matrix over the last seven years.The equation was seemingly balanced: a salary cap, a salary rollback and other mechanisms put in place after the 2004-05 lockout to achieve what he deemed "Cost Certainty." (And can't you just hear Agent Smith's reptilian lips uttering that phrase with a demonic purr?)The glitch? That the percentage of revenue given to the players, now standing at 57 percent, was too large to sustain the viability of 30 franchises, something perpetuated by his own general managers as they sent labor costs into the stratosphere. The laser-focus Bettman had on establishing the salary cap was short sighted; he and the NHL were unable to predict how the league's teams would jump through CBA loopholes like hyperactive poodles at a circus in order to spend to win.So rather than any dramatic restructuring of a flawed system — the NHLPA, to this point, hasn't gone to war over the salary cap in the 2012 labor talks — the NHL wants to fix the glitch.Which brings us to an uncomfortable possibility: That the nature of the league's revenue and its potential growth all but guarantees that a work stoppage will occur at the end of every CBA. It's happened before, it's happening now, it'll happen again — unless conditions change.The primary dispute in this lockout is the definition and distribution of Hockey Related Revenue. The owners want the players' share dropped to below 50 percent during the life of the CBA, which could mean a billion dollars difference between the current system.Bettman's had a hard sell here because the League has trumpeted record profits for the last few seasons: $3.3 billion in revenue last season, signifying dramatic growth since the last lockout, in a terrible economy no less.He's made the case that the players' share will lead to fiscal instability across the league. He's made the case that revenues growing at a 7.1 percent clip won't be the norm — that the Canadian dollar, the relocation to Winnipeg and the NBC TV deal have all led to the surge in profits, but only in the short term."Of course, there is a fourth factor," wrote Larry Brooks of the NY Post over the weekend, "the significant annual hikes in ticket prices pretty much across the board, and most dramatically in the league's biggest markets."Which is to say that the NHL is still a gate-driven league, although it's not latched onto that teat the same way it was during the 1995 lockout. Other revenue streams — TV, digital, merchandise — have grown considerably, but not to the point where the NHL isn't beholden to the almighty turnstile.And that's the scary part for this league: Owners can decrease the value of contracts and restrict salary inflation; but they all know that unless the situation is dire, ticket prices can't dramatically decrease for a significant portion of time.In fact, they'll rise, though not at dramatic rates across the board. And if they rise, does there come a point at which the NHL risks tapping out certain markets?Full article here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinahMoeHumm Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Which brings us to an uncomfortable possibility: That the nature of the league's revenue and its potential growth all but guarantees that a work stoppage will occur at the end of every CBA. It's happened before, it's happening now, it'll happen again — unless conditions change.I think it merits mentioning that @jammer2 nailed this very thing in another thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Makes you wonder why the owners and bettman even get along (if they even are)? It's the owners that shot holes in Bettman's last CBA. Of coarse it didn't help that Bettman's CBA was that weak. It's kinda obvious that the owners really really really in their hearts didn't want the cap or else they wouldn't have found all these loop holes. Or atleast the rich teams , it would seem, were forced into it because the weak teams needed it. The rich teams found ways around the cap/cba to spend more while the weak teams knew the loop holes but were seldom in a finacial situation to take advantage of it. The strong got stronger, the weak weaker...Once again though I say, why turn to the players (who I believe would be willing to drop over 3-5 years to a 50/50 split) to bail out the owners and Bettman's bad decisions...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinahMoeHumm Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Once again though I say, why turn to the players (who I believe would be willing to drop over 3-5 years to a 50/50 split) to bail out the owners and Bettman's bad decisions...?Right. And then 5-7 years from now it'll be the same thing, then the same thing again, and... :wacko: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerrod Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Right. And then 5-7 years from now it'll be the same thing, then the same thing again, and... :wacko:And We now welcome you to the wonderful world of union contract negotiations in today's world. It is not a question of if you will be giving back, it is a question of how much............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
idahophilly Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Thanks. I feel welcomed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinahMoeHumm Posted September 18, 2012 Author Share Posted September 18, 2012 Me too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.