Time for the fans to solve the lockout - Solution #1 of 3
Posted 5:47 PM ET | Comments 0
So after hearing the news on the radio this afternoon, I admittedly have had my fill of the No Hockey League.
Being a Florida Panthers fan since day one, and a new resident of the amazing city of Calgary, I was obviously looking forward to this season and all that was ahead.
Instead I get Labour Wars: Episode III, Bettmans latest edition of the Labour Wars.
I recall the 1994 one, was only 14 and barely realyl noticed. Really remember 2004, and again we survived. But this one, I dont know... something feels realyl wrong. And I know what it is: The biggest issue to hit hockey labour was settled 7 years ago Gary, what are you and your owner buddies doing?
For one, if you really wanted to cut costs, how exactly do you explain the contracts handed out THIS summer. Parise and Suter come to mind. Get over yourselves NHL, I dont go looking to buy a house, negotiate a purchase price with the owner, and sign off on all the paperwork, and then say to the seller: "Sorry, I am not taking your home and paying you until you agree to rollback 25% of the cost" That is NOT how the real world works.
And while I tend to lean towards supporting the players, they are not 100% innocent either. In the real world, if you are in a union lets say for example the tv/newspaper industry, you dont get locked out adn go somewhere else. If the Edmonton SUN newspaper locked out its employees, a reporter doesnt go to the St Albert Herald and take the job from another reporter. So why then is it OK to take the job of a european hockey player like Dominic Pittis?
Anyhow, we need a solution to this mess and fast. So I am going to suggest a few ideas in the coming days, starting with today... AKA the Simple solution.
The simple solution to this is to settled the issue once and for all. Being someone who knows alot about business and finance, I have reviewed what the two sides offers looked like, and have to say I like the players offer the most.
So I would build off that.
But instead of doing exactly as they have here is what I do different:
1) All current contracts are to be honored: - The owners negotiated these contracts, accept it guys, you are stuck with the consequences. Live with it and accept it.
2) All future contracts year by year salaries count towards cap. - Basically speaking, no more Luongo million dollar 5 year end deals. Your first year is going to be 14 million Weber, then that is your cap hit.
3) Now we get to the real financials
3a) HRR to be kept the same, except one big difference. Revenue sharing currently comes from the owners pockets right? Well take those funds from the TOTAL pot of funds, before figuring out the cap for the year.
Which brings me to:
3b)The big bad split: In year one, players share should drop to around 53% (Just a little above what the cap was last year); Year 2: 52% of the earnings and from year 3 going forward: a 50/50 split.
The owners should have never been given the 70.2 million cap to work with, and should have worked within last years framework, therefore restorign the cap back to last years number makes it workable, PLUS doesnt set the players contracts back. And the small percentage decreases in the next two years would have little impact on the players or free spending owners, therfore obtaining a fair 50/50 conclusion.
But until they can figure this out... I am all WHL and AHL all the way!
Coming soon: 2 wacky hockey ideas!
Being a Florida Panthers fan since day one, and a new resident of the amazing city of Calgary, I was obviously looking forward to this season and all that was ahead.
Instead I get Labour Wars: Episode III, Bettmans latest edition of the Labour Wars.
I recall the 1994 one, was only 14 and barely realyl noticed. Really remember 2004, and again we survived. But this one, I dont know... something feels realyl wrong. And I know what it is: The biggest issue to hit hockey labour was settled 7 years ago Gary, what are you and your owner buddies doing?
For one, if you really wanted to cut costs, how exactly do you explain the contracts handed out THIS summer. Parise and Suter come to mind. Get over yourselves NHL, I dont go looking to buy a house, negotiate a purchase price with the owner, and sign off on all the paperwork, and then say to the seller: "Sorry, I am not taking your home and paying you until you agree to rollback 25% of the cost" That is NOT how the real world works.
And while I tend to lean towards supporting the players, they are not 100% innocent either. In the real world, if you are in a union lets say for example the tv/newspaper industry, you dont get locked out adn go somewhere else. If the Edmonton SUN newspaper locked out its employees, a reporter doesnt go to the St Albert Herald and take the job from another reporter. So why then is it OK to take the job of a european hockey player like Dominic Pittis?
Anyhow, we need a solution to this mess and fast. So I am going to suggest a few ideas in the coming days, starting with today... AKA the Simple solution.
The simple solution to this is to settled the issue once and for all. Being someone who knows alot about business and finance, I have reviewed what the two sides offers looked like, and have to say I like the players offer the most.
So I would build off that.
But instead of doing exactly as they have here is what I do different:
1) All current contracts are to be honored: - The owners negotiated these contracts, accept it guys, you are stuck with the consequences. Live with it and accept it.
2) All future contracts year by year salaries count towards cap. - Basically speaking, no more Luongo million dollar 5 year end deals. Your first year is going to be 14 million Weber, then that is your cap hit.
3) Now we get to the real financials
3a) HRR to be kept the same, except one big difference. Revenue sharing currently comes from the owners pockets right? Well take those funds from the TOTAL pot of funds, before figuring out the cap for the year.
Which brings me to:
3b)The big bad split: In year one, players share should drop to around 53% (Just a little above what the cap was last year); Year 2: 52% of the earnings and from year 3 going forward: a 50/50 split.
The owners should have never been given the 70.2 million cap to work with, and should have worked within last years framework, therefore restorign the cap back to last years number makes it workable, PLUS doesnt set the players contracts back. And the small percentage decreases in the next two years would have little impact on the players or free spending owners, therfore obtaining a fair 50/50 conclusion.
But until they can figure this out... I am all WHL and AHL all the way!
Coming soon: 2 wacky hockey ideas!