Refs ask Goodenow to give in to linkage

[Jim Bob 0]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/columns/story?id=1989453

Walkom understands there is little time left to negotiate a settlement. But he also thinks if Goodenow agrees to the owners' demand for a link between revenues and salaries a deal can get done that would save the season.

He also said he empathizes with the union's reluctance to trust the financial information the league has offered. The NHLOA had its own tug of war with the league early in 1993-94 when it went on strike for 17 days over its own CBA with the league.

"We understand the reason for the mistrust. We've gone through that," he said.

He said the only way for the league and the players to thrive is to shift the focus away from their business problems.

"What happens if you do this, you give the game back to the fans and the fans come back to the game," Walkom said. "If our industry is healthy, and a partnership is broached between the players and the owners, then the focus will be on the players who will benefit for years to come."

The players have basically had it their way since the last agreement was forged in 1995, Walkom said. Now it's time for the owners to regain control.

"They need to have control of their league back," he said. "I think Bob's done a wonderful job for the players, now it's time for him to do something wonderful for the game."

[Jim Bob 0]

Ironic that the players get no credit for offering the biggest concessions of both sides as of yet and for even jump starting the negotiations in December. Blinded glasses.

Who says that the players don't get credit for the 24% rollback?

That was a big move. However, that singular move didn't do anything to address the issue of salary growth outpacing revenue growth that has gotten the NHL into the problems that they are in right now.

And I haven't seen all that much in the NHLPA's offers that would suggest to me that they are even slightly interested in putting a serious drag on salary growth.

That's why they are fighting tooth and nail to keep arbitration as close to what it has been in the past as possible. It has been inflationary.

It's why the NHLPA got all bent out of shape when the NHL said that players had to be signed 14 days into training camp or they couldn't sign for the remainder of the season. They knew that would put a serious drag on salaries because it would cause the players to lose the leverage they have by withholding their services.

And the luxury tax that the NHLPA has offered up to date has been a joke. And their response to a tax with real teeth (Brian Burke's luxury tax proposal) has been that it was a "pseudo salary cap" and that they wouldn't be interested in something like that.

To me, the players should get major kudos for two items: the 24% rollback and their pressing for what I'd call meaningful revenue sharing.

However, I don't believe they've been serious about creating a system that puts meaningful elements into place that would see salary grow as a rate that is similiar to revenue growth into the future.

And without that, the NHL will be in the same exact spot that they are now when this next CBA expires.

[Chadd 916]

Without real revenue sharing the NHL isn't serious about fixing real problems. Some teams will make more money but the teams in weak markets will still be in a lot of trouble. With teams having economic problems, it's more beneficial for the NHL to use them as examples of problems caused by the players than to fix the actual problem.

[Jim Bob 0]

While I feel that the NHL needs more revenue sharing and I'm disappointed with the stance that the NHL has taken thusfar, I do believe that in the long term that teams in viable markets should be able to live with the system that the NHL has proposed without huge amounts of revenue sharing.

If a team can't be financially viable with a payroll at the bottom range of the NHL's cap-floor system, then it doesn't deserve to be in the NHL, IMO.

Plus, I do like the one idea behind the NHL's idea of sharing playoff revenue. That will remove a major economic incentive for teams to try and spend to win.

[Chadd 916]

Plus, I do like the one idea behind the NHL's idea of sharing playoff revenue. That will remove a major economic incentive for teams to try and spend to win.

By not paying low revenue teams if they make the playoffs, it gives them no incentive to do anything but the minimum. 75-25 split of the home gate would be a far better way to share revenue and teams would still have the incentive to make the playoffs to get more revenue. I also think the NHL should take a larger share of the playoff revenue for increased marketing initiatives.

If they drop the teams that can't compete financially, eventually you will be left with 6 or 8 teams. That's great for the people in those cities but bad for the sport and the fans in the rest of the country.

[Jim Bob 0]

I would be surprised if more than 2 to 4 teams couldn't compete where they are currently located under the system proposed by the NHL that didn't have a whole lot of revenue sharing.

And most of the markets that can't compete would likely fall into either the category of a bad market for hockey (Atlanta) or a market that has financail issues outside of CBA control (Pittsburgh and their lack of a modern arena).

I'd prefer that the NHL was pushing for more revenue sharing. But, I don't think their system is as dependant on it for the survival of all markets as the NHLPA's is.

The NHL is banking on their system providing for marquee players to be spread out more evenly throughout the league and that giving a boost to some of the smaller markets.

And it's pretty obvious to me that most small market owners would rather have a cap and minimal revenue sharing than loads of revenue sharing and no cap.

[Chadd 916]

Pittsburgh, Carolina Buffalo and Edmonton would have major problems immediately and over the long term with a $32M-$33M salary floor. Colombus, Nashville, Florida, San Jose and Tampa would likely have problems in the long term. If the Canadian dollar ever drops in relation to the US dollar, Montreal and Calgary would have problems very quickly.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist but that doesn't sound too good to me.

[GekigangarIII 0]

Pittsburgh, Carolina Buffalo and Edmonton would have major problems immediately and over the long term with a $32M-$33M salary floor. Colombus, Nashville, Florida, San Jose and Tampa would likely have problems in the long term. If the Canadian dollar ever drops in relation to the US dollar, Montreal and Calgary would have problems very quickly.

I've got to respectfully disagree with Columbus having trouble. They're one of the few teams to actually make money, with limited to no star power and no post season play. I will say that for the most part the expansion teams of the last 16 years have been poor attempts but it seems Columbus and Minn are pretty good examples of what can be done. Granted Minn and Ohio are far better hockey markets than florida, southern california and most south east states.

[Chadd 916]

Columbus has such a low payroll and players that will obviously require increases in the next couple of years. Rick Nash may end up as the MVP whenever the NHL starts up again. If they are making a large profit I apologize but they have a very low payroll and some significant increases in expenses coming very soon.

Minnesota is an interesting example of ownership that is raking in money. They've been around the lowest payroll in the league every year while selling out every home game since they came into the league.

[Jim Bob 0]

Pittsburgh, Carolina Buffalo and Edmonton would have major problems immediately and over the long term with a $32M-$33M salary floor. Colombus, Nashville, Florida, San Jose and Tampa would likely have problems in the long term. If the Canadian dollar ever drops in relation to the US dollar, Montreal and Calgary would have problems very quickly.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist but that doesn't sound too good to me.

Now that Tom Golisano is the owner, I doubt the Sabres would have long term issues with a salary floor in the $32 to 33 million range. Especially if the NHL gets the linkage that would see that floor go even lower if/when league revenue get worse.

Golisano has already fixed a lot of the financial problems that the team has had. And the team's $10 million loss in 2003-04 included a $5 million one time cost for arena improvements that will bring in advertising revenue in the future.

Carolina is a market issue.

Pittsburgh could be stabilized should the NHL get it's cost certainty and then the local government stepped up and helped fund a new arena.

I think the NHL's last offer would deal with many of Edmonton's major issues.

I think Columbus will be OK.

Nashville, Florida, and San Jose will depend on how well the franchises are run. Although, I think Florida (aka Miami) is a market that could be a lost cause like Carolina.

I think Tampa Bay will be OK with it's current ownership group.

And while Calgary might have to depend on a strong dollar, I can't see Montreal ever being in that boat. Ottawa perhaps, but I see Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver being solid for a long time given where they are at right now.

[Jim Bob 0]

Columbus has had revenues in the same area as Vancouver and St Louis. I'd be very surprised if they had major issues in the future.

[Smith 0]

Columbus has had revenues in the same area as Vancouver and St Louis. I'd be very surprised if they had major issues in the future.

They will be fine for long time. They have sold out almost all the games, Mr Mack also ownes the arena football team, and almost all the buildings around the Arena. People in the press that say Columbus is in trouble have never been to a game here, they are just talking out there a**

[Chadd 916]

Regardless of who owns the team and what other sources of income they have, it should be a matter of teams being able to stand on their own. All of the cities I cited have had problems under the current system and I was simply going off of what their management has said over the last 12 months.

If you want to call them liars, have at it. You just can't have it both ways.