IceMan
02-02-2005, 05:55 PM
Apparently, we're not going to have a season, and with both sides firmly entrenched, next season is already in jeopardy. Were you annointed hockey god for one day, how would you fix it ?
The owners want "cost certainty" ... tying player salaries to a maximum percentage of revenue built into the CBA. The players want the owners to act like businessmen and be able to set their salary structure (and profits/bottomline) based on what the market will bear. If a team is poor, they would have less for salary or they could pay a ton and go broke, but it would be up to them.
Honestly, both sides make a bit of sense to me. Politicallly speaking, I'm a Republican, and therefore a capitalist, and as such, I'm more inclined to side with the players on this one, and let the market do what it's going to do. Teams that can afford to spend (or choose to spend) 99% of their revenues on players should be allowed to do so, and their losses are their problem. If they want to make more money, they pay out less to players, but run the risk of having no fan support. That said, this philosophy only works in a world where all things are equal. NHL Cities vary in potential fan support from 10,000,000 in New York, to a few hundred thousand in some other cities. The potential for sellouts of games, jersey and trinket sales, etc is not the same in every city, and therefore, some cities, just due to their size have no chance of putting out a consitantly competitive or profitable team out there year after year. Yes, there are abberations where small market teams catch a wave and go all the way, but do they have the finances to sustain that level of quality in their minor league system? Can they afford to keep their top players? Even though the Rangers are operated by a bunch of donuts, and have put out a terrible product, they're still profiting due to that large fan base.
Anyway, I think the NHL needs to come at this from both sides, and look at things more realistically. Owning an NHL Franchise is not like opening up a Deli, where you have total control over how to market yourself, how much you'll spend on materials and staff, etc. In the real world, a franchisee (the owner of a team) is part of a collective. They pay into, and take out of various monetary pools for the purposes of marketing, operations, etc. The NHL needs to do a better job of this .... here's some ideas:
NHL Team Owners agree that they are part of a bigger whole, and as such agree to more equitable profit sharing of alternate revenue streams, for the benifet of the league as a whole. A percentage of all income goes to the NHL for equal redistribution. This includes ticket sales, merchandising, stadium naming rights (where applicable), radio and TV advertising, etc. Similarly, the league itself will evenly distribute it's income from national TV and Radio, and other streams amongst the teams. This type of system would have all 30 teams starting off with perhaps $15 million to $20 million from shared earnings before they even calculate in the portion of their own sales that they get to keep.
I'm not in favor of a salary cap (or "cost certainty") at all. It's up to each team to decide what portion of their income (both internally generated and shared) to spend on players and salaries. However, I would absolutely institute a salary floor. Teams must spend the higher of 47% of income or $33 million on player salary. (this number would grow each year). This ensures a minimum standard, but doesn't lock a team into a cap, and doesn't force parity on the fans.
Teams would also agree to spend certain portions of income on minor league teams/salaries, charitable efforts, community stuff, etc. Essentially, you should be able to expect that every NHL team, and every NHL (or AHL/ECHL) city is operating under the same guidelines. As a fan, you can expect so many apperances per year, so much charity work, and a high level of talent due to the minimum salary requirement. I would institute a luxury tax on the owners based not on physical dollar amount, but on percentage of revenue spent on players. If the owner spends more than, say, 60% of his income on players, his tax is 3x the overage. at 70%, it goes to 10x overage, etc. This lets owners that can afford it to spend the big bucks, but at a premium that is tied to % not dollars.
From the players standpoint, they need to be aware that while they play the most physically demanding sport in the world, at the highest levels ... that a 4th liner making a million bucks a year is friekin absurd. While we're not going to institute a cap, meaning that players can earn whatever the market will bear, they need to understand that the market will not bear what they think it will, and what it has in the past. Players that seek arbitration to get a raise will forfiet a percentage of their arbitrated salary to the League. Players under contract that hold out for more money will be fined per-diem for each day they do not play.
With regards to free agency and arbitration, I'm not expert enough in that part of the game to make the perfect proposal, but I would say that whatever can be done to encourage teams and players to stay put, I'm for it. Having a revolving door of players sucks as a fan .... getting attached to your team means you'll spend more money on their stuff, and that can only be good for the league.
Let's do all that we can to get a good pension and health plan in for the players. Not much is made of this issue, but from what I understand, the situation isn't very good. Given the salaries these guys make, they can usually afford to take care of themselves, but there's a lot of minimum salary guys in the minors that severely need some security.
So that's it.
Accross the board revenue sharing by all teams, from all sources
NHL Revenue sharing from national deals to all teams
Minimum Salary requirement (higer of 47% of income or $33mil)
Luxury tax based on % of income spent on salaries ... increasing on a graduated scale
Player fines and fees for arbitration and holdouts
Rules to discourage free agent moves
I can't think of much else yet. Anything to add ?
The owners want "cost certainty" ... tying player salaries to a maximum percentage of revenue built into the CBA. The players want the owners to act like businessmen and be able to set their salary structure (and profits/bottomline) based on what the market will bear. If a team is poor, they would have less for salary or they could pay a ton and go broke, but it would be up to them.
Honestly, both sides make a bit of sense to me. Politicallly speaking, I'm a Republican, and therefore a capitalist, and as such, I'm more inclined to side with the players on this one, and let the market do what it's going to do. Teams that can afford to spend (or choose to spend) 99% of their revenues on players should be allowed to do so, and their losses are their problem. If they want to make more money, they pay out less to players, but run the risk of having no fan support. That said, this philosophy only works in a world where all things are equal. NHL Cities vary in potential fan support from 10,000,000 in New York, to a few hundred thousand in some other cities. The potential for sellouts of games, jersey and trinket sales, etc is not the same in every city, and therefore, some cities, just due to their size have no chance of putting out a consitantly competitive or profitable team out there year after year. Yes, there are abberations where small market teams catch a wave and go all the way, but do they have the finances to sustain that level of quality in their minor league system? Can they afford to keep their top players? Even though the Rangers are operated by a bunch of donuts, and have put out a terrible product, they're still profiting due to that large fan base.
Anyway, I think the NHL needs to come at this from both sides, and look at things more realistically. Owning an NHL Franchise is not like opening up a Deli, where you have total control over how to market yourself, how much you'll spend on materials and staff, etc. In the real world, a franchisee (the owner of a team) is part of a collective. They pay into, and take out of various monetary pools for the purposes of marketing, operations, etc. The NHL needs to do a better job of this .... here's some ideas:
NHL Team Owners agree that they are part of a bigger whole, and as such agree to more equitable profit sharing of alternate revenue streams, for the benifet of the league as a whole. A percentage of all income goes to the NHL for equal redistribution. This includes ticket sales, merchandising, stadium naming rights (where applicable), radio and TV advertising, etc. Similarly, the league itself will evenly distribute it's income from national TV and Radio, and other streams amongst the teams. This type of system would have all 30 teams starting off with perhaps $15 million to $20 million from shared earnings before they even calculate in the portion of their own sales that they get to keep.
I'm not in favor of a salary cap (or "cost certainty") at all. It's up to each team to decide what portion of their income (both internally generated and shared) to spend on players and salaries. However, I would absolutely institute a salary floor. Teams must spend the higher of 47% of income or $33 million on player salary. (this number would grow each year). This ensures a minimum standard, but doesn't lock a team into a cap, and doesn't force parity on the fans.
Teams would also agree to spend certain portions of income on minor league teams/salaries, charitable efforts, community stuff, etc. Essentially, you should be able to expect that every NHL team, and every NHL (or AHL/ECHL) city is operating under the same guidelines. As a fan, you can expect so many apperances per year, so much charity work, and a high level of talent due to the minimum salary requirement. I would institute a luxury tax on the owners based not on physical dollar amount, but on percentage of revenue spent on players. If the owner spends more than, say, 60% of his income on players, his tax is 3x the overage. at 70%, it goes to 10x overage, etc. This lets owners that can afford it to spend the big bucks, but at a premium that is tied to % not dollars.
From the players standpoint, they need to be aware that while they play the most physically demanding sport in the world, at the highest levels ... that a 4th liner making a million bucks a year is friekin absurd. While we're not going to institute a cap, meaning that players can earn whatever the market will bear, they need to understand that the market will not bear what they think it will, and what it has in the past. Players that seek arbitration to get a raise will forfiet a percentage of their arbitrated salary to the League. Players under contract that hold out for more money will be fined per-diem for each day they do not play.
With regards to free agency and arbitration, I'm not expert enough in that part of the game to make the perfect proposal, but I would say that whatever can be done to encourage teams and players to stay put, I'm for it. Having a revolving door of players sucks as a fan .... getting attached to your team means you'll spend more money on their stuff, and that can only be good for the league.
Let's do all that we can to get a good pension and health plan in for the players. Not much is made of this issue, but from what I understand, the situation isn't very good. Given the salaries these guys make, they can usually afford to take care of themselves, but there's a lot of minimum salary guys in the minors that severely need some security.
So that's it.
Accross the board revenue sharing by all teams, from all sources
NHL Revenue sharing from national deals to all teams
Minimum Salary requirement (higer of 47% of income or $33mil)
Luxury tax based on % of income spent on salaries ... increasing on a graduated scale
Player fines and fees for arbitration and holdouts
Rules to discourage free agent moves
I can't think of much else yet. Anything to add ?