Oooouch, that one's got to hurt, it may have even left a bruise.
However, on a related note that should be filed under... he who laughs last, laughs best.
One year into the new economic order of the NHL and it's the league that owes money to the NHL Players' Association, not the other way around, as was initially expected.
Sources tell TSN the league did not spend 54 per cent of hockey-related revenue (HRR) in the first year of the new collective bargaining agreement and must now make up the difference to the NHLPA, as per the terms of the new collective bargaining agreement.
While the final calculations have not yet been done, sources suggest the amount could be in the $35 million to $40 million range, although the precise amount will depend upon the final calculation for HRR for the first year [...]
The fact the league owes the players money, and not the other way around, comes as a surprise only because in the midst of last season it looked as though the players might be owing a considerable amount - between 10 and 15 per cent of their salaries - as part of the escrow that is established if it looks as though the league is spending more than 54 per cent of HRR on player costs.
But because the revenue by season's end was much greater than originally pegged coming out of the lockout, the league ended up spending less than 54 per cent. Just as the players must pay escrow if the league overspends, the league must provide a "top-up" payment if it falls short.
Who's laughing now?
3 comments:
The way the CBA is written under normal conditions the owners will owe the players money every year after the season ends.
Sure the players may have paid significant amounts into escrow funds, but the calculation is set up so that they overpay and then get a refund when the season ends.
It is pretty unworkable any other way. If the players owed the owners money the owners would have a hard time collecting from some journeyman who just went off to Russia for example.
The owners owing the players money is by design. A serious look at the CBA as soon as it was available showed this was going to happen every year. If the owners want to use this fact as a public relations ploy it is dishonest. They set up a system where it was designed that they would owe players money at the end of the year. And they set it up that way because they were afraid that if the players ever owed them money, they wouldn't be able to collect in full
Thanks for clearing that up for me, The Puck Stops Here. The new CBA gives me a headache so your help is greatly appreciated. However it does seem to have come as a surprise to many that the owners owe as much or anything at all to the players based on last seasons revenues. Bob McKenzie, the NHL beat reporter whose story I linked to for instance is a little surprised.
Bob McKenzie is a mouthpiece of owner's propoganda. I think he knows more than he lets on.
Post a Comment