Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:00 AM

#2332865 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 27 October 2012 - 06:10 PM

...I believe that these investors should at least have the right to try to make a profit on their investment. A 1.5% profit is not fair in the least bit.

I really don't believe the "players were screwed" in the last contract. If you do not recall, the players were making a killing and a vast majority of people were on the owners side in that lockout. True, they took a rollback, but they also had 57% of the revenue in the length of the last CBA. In that time, the players salaries on average are up from 1.5 million to 2.5 million before the start of the 2011-2012 season. Today, it is even higher I am sure.

In the meantime, many people want to look at the Forbes report and say that it is bunk. The league made $110 million last year. That is all fine and dandy, but you if you split 30 teams between $110 million, that $3.66 million per franchise. If those are pure profits, the owners who have invested in a $250 million dollar investment would be making 1.5% on their investment. I know that the owners are viewed as billionaires and they can "lose some money", but if you had the opportunity to make 1.5% on your investment for a year, would you be happy about it?

IMHO, the players can and should take a pay cut of some kind, but every contract should be honored. There is more than enough for both sides in this negotiation.

Don't make up numbers and use them as if they were facts.

The league made $126.5M in 2010-11. About 4% of revenue. We don't know what the profit was last year, since Forbes doesn't have those numbers yet. (However, the numbers we do know, and growth trends for those we don't know, suggest it's very possible the league may have turned record profits last year.)

Secondly, the average purchase price for an NHL team was $139M. Average ownership length is 14 years. Average team value as of last November is $240M, for an appreciation average of $101M. Average profit for the first 6 years of the prior CBA, plus the last year of the CBA before that was $24.5M. Even if we assume profits for last year of only $110M, it brings that to $28.2. Profits or losses from '98-99 through '02-03 aren't available, but considering the league could have, but didn't (in fact, the league agreed to extend that deal 4 years beyond it's original end), open negotiations for a new CBA before each of those years it's hard to imagine any losses were significant. We'll just say the league broke even over that span.

So in total profits, income plus appreciation, the average owner has seen pretty close to (and possibly more than) a 100% return on investment minus whatever was lost in '04-05. Average annual ROI is probably at least 6%, and that's even with losing an entire season. Average annual return on revenue over the life of the last CBA is likely around 5%. And that was with a players' share of 54-57%. All the players' proposals have been less than that.

So you can continue to make up "facts", act like owners can't make any money, etc...but saying it doesn't make it true. Even at 57%, the league as a whole does decent. At 53-54%, the league as a whole would be doing better than the vast majority of industries in the US. The problem in the league is not player salaries, nor player contract rights. The problem is the revenue disparity. That is an issue the owners need to address among themselves. The players have offered to slow (almost stagnate) their salary growth for a time to help. The owners should be saying 'thank you'.

In regards to the bolded section, it simply isn't possible to take an immediate pay cut and honor every contract at the same time. They can take a relative cut in the future, and they have already offered to do so. But the owners are demanding both an immediate cut, and a larger relative cut in the future. Neither is justified by the numbers.

And here's something for the owners to think about, if they're already worried about their public image: Imagine how much worse it will be if we're still locked out in a month, and the Forbes numbers do come out showing record profits.

#2332654 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 25 October 2012 - 12:02 AM

I agree 100% with your assessment. What Bettman and Daly are doing now is petty. Not that we haven't seen this from Fehr in these negotiations though. Before the NHL's big 50/50 proposal hype, they were waiting on Fehr to table a proposal, and Fehr never did. His response was that this wasn't "ping-pong" and the NHLPA proposal was what they wanted to work from.

So, while you are against Bettman, just realize that Fehr pulls the same crap when it benefits him.

What the owners' camp is doing now is standing firm. Nothing inherently wrong with the behavior; it's wrong only if you believe they're standing firm behind an unreasonable demand. You can say the same for the PA, if you happen to think their demands are unreasonable. I don't, so I don't see any problem in their standing firm. (And it's hard to believe you really think they are either, when you posted an idea that was essentially the same as one of the PA proposals.)

But you're also ignoring the fact that it isn't ping-pong. There's no rule anywhere that says proposals have to take turns. When Fehr didn't put forth a new proposal, what he was really saying was that the offer at that time was the same as the last offer made. The owner's were the ones who supposedly took their offer off the table, so really they were the ones not showing their hand at the time. Besides that, the owners gave the impression that they weren't willing to consider any offer that didn't include an immediate pay cut (and considering how they handled the PAs last offers, that's not hard to believe), so it's likely there was little point in making a new offer. Much like the current situation. There's nothing to talk about, and there won't be until someone loses (or sits on the brink of losing) enough to change their mind. (Hopefully that's tomorrow, but I won't hold my breath.) You can go either way (or neither), depending on which side (if any) you think is being reasonable.

For clarity, when I say reasonable, I mean making an offer the other side should accept.

The players' demands as I see them:
No reduction in current contracts (or at least, no more than would be taken under the escrow rules of the prior CBA)
No reduction in the actual dollar value of the current players' share: $1.883B + marginal growth to offset rising benefit costs. (at least not as long as revenue keeps growing at a decent rate. Subject to the same escrow as above.)
Players' share not below 50% in any given season
Token rise in players' share if revenue growth exceeds expectations (not so adamant on this I think, but the only proposal without it is the "#3", where it's mostly replaced by some player pay being outside the players' share)

They certainly want contracting rules to stay as is, but they haven't talked much about that. I don't know that I would conclude that the lack of any provisions in their proposals is because they're actually proposing to keep them as is, or just leaving them to be negotiated later.

The owners' demands:
Immediate reduction of the players' share to 50%
Players' share not more than 50% in any given season
Pretty much across the board reduction in all player contracting rights

They seem fairly adamant about "clarifying" the definition of HRR, which should be taken to mean redefining it in their favor (though it does also open the door to go the other way). Seems absurd that there's anything to clarify after seven years, but then again the PA didn't exercise their right to audit league accounting until Fehr came in (and found problems, league settled for paying players an additional $20M, who knows what the player's might have been shorted in the first 5 years since those years can no longer be audited) so I guess it really is needed.

I don't think anything in the players' demands is unreasonable, unless it turns out they are totally inflexible on any contract rules. The only demand from the owners that I think is reasonable is the HRR, and only if they really mean 'mutual clarification'. Ironically, that one should be the most ridiculous, but sadly it seems truly necessary.

#2332438 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 23 October 2012 - 12:14 AM

With me saying I blame the owners 60%-40% over the players, I don't see how you can make the claim that I support the owners over the players. Maybe it is because when I mention how much Bettman and the owners are greedy and they insult the players with their initial offers, you actually read "blah blah blah blah blah". ...

Almost all your posts are arguing with those who support the PA, so naturally the majority of your points go against the players. Criticism of the owners is mostly limited to one little line in a whole post countering any pro-player opinions. Someone not following the entire debate could easily draw a wrong conclusion. Hell, I've been involved in a lot of it, and sometimes I forget. :)

#2332362 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 22 October 2012 - 03:13 AM

Burnside at ESPN just wrote one of the best columns on the NHL Lockout.


The best line in the story though is this....

Little point in sitting down if one side is going to throw out proposals after barely a glance. Remember, this is twice in a row Bettman has rejected proposals without even taking time to consider them. Just a glance to see if there's an immediate pay cut, and if not it goes straight in the trash. How do you negotiate with that? What more can the players do but capitulate to the owners demands?

What bugs me about all of the people bashing the union is that you all seem to agree that they shouldn't have to take a pay cut, but then say they have to be willing to compromise and give up a little more. Those two statements are contradictory. The players are as low as they can realistically go in the short term without pay cuts, and pretty much as low as they can go on the overall share% without going below 50% in any given year. And the worst part is that the longer the owners fail to acknowledge that, the higher the player's share has to be to avoid cuts.

That seems to be the owner's plan. They'll force the players to take a cut one way or another. They'll lose revenue this year, possibly strangle future growth, probably win again. Then when the next negotiations come around, and the league is in the exact same place, they'll do it all again.

The only place I find blame on both sides is that neither actually addresses the real problem. They need to solve the revenue disparity, and I don't think revenue sharing is the answer. They have to change the payroll range system. $16M is too small. And some teams have to move. If they don't, whether the split is 50% or 52% when this CBA ends doesn't make any difference. Either will still see a handful of teams that can't reach the floor, 10-15 more teams that could get themselves in trouble if they don't spend wisely. The top teams will add another $100M in profits on top of what they're already not allowed to spend, but the situation for the rest of the league won't be any different than it is now. The owners will come out talking about how unfair a 50/50 split is, and lockout again until they get 45%.

Maybe if this lockout causes revenues to take a hit, we might be lucky enough to see the kind of labor peace MLB has had since the strike, but I think for that to happen players have to "win" this negotiation.

#2332210 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 19 October 2012 - 08:21 AM

My only question is...do the players realize that they are already giving up percentages of their salary with each missed paycheck during this lockout?

They are telling everyone each time they want their contract to be honored 100%...but in the meantime they already lost 1 of 12 paychecks this year...essentialy giving up 8% of their salary.

They also have to realize that when the next batch of games is canceled...the chances are only getting smaller that the owners are willing to honor their contracts in full, whatever construction they want to use.

I hope that the PA shares their proposals with the media, so I can have a look for myself how they want to get to 50/50 in the first year without giving up salary...

If they can salvage a full 82 game schedule, there's likely no need to pro-rate any salary (aside from a drop in revenue). They may miss a check or two, but their remaining checks would just be that much higher.

Also, there is the principle to consider. The fight may be futile, but that's not a good reason to just submit. If you can leave the other guy a little bloody, it makes him less likely to want to fight again in the future.

#2331642 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 15 October 2012 - 02:12 PM

I believe that financially, things change so a new CBA should be negotiated every 5 years or so. Lets get that out of the way first.

I believe the players should have to give up a little for various reasons. The cost to operate a club has went up, rent, fuel charges, team personnel, and so on. I don't know what it takes to run an NHL team in terms of cash, but these costs alone are worth a little bit at least. As clearly pointed out in Forbes, many teams are not making a profit right now, which means the most profitable ones are carrying the entire league. Lastly, I look at other leagues and the split in each league. For example, the NFL and NBA the split is close to 50-50 with the league. I believe an even split is quite equitable.

Costs (not including player compensation) have been going down relative to revenue. At least over the first 6 years of the previous CBA.

Eight years ago, with the league as a whole losing money, the owners decided that 54% growing to 57% was good enough. Now, with the league as a whole making money and other costs having dropped relative to revenue, 54% and likely dropping from there with revenue growth isn't. Yeah, that makes sense.

#2331492 Z basically says Bettman should be fired

Posted by Buppy on 13 October 2012 - 11:12 AM

Why are the owners wrong for not wanting 18 of their franchises to lose money? We can blame the owners of those teams for handing out huge stupid contracts (And I really do) but in the end it has to be fixed or the league will lose franchises which in turn equals less revenue, less jobs for players and no big TV conract.

This is why this lock-out makes me so mad. The owners were stupid and the players are greedy and have lost touch with reality.

They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players.

The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other.

The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA.

But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.

#2331334 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 11 October 2012 - 03:28 PM

The 50-50 split in other leagues is irrelevant because of the way revenues are defined. Why do you think the definition of HRR is a core issue right now?

For the record, the NBA and NFL both take the players share from sport related revenue. Same thing as the NHL, with maybe some minor differences in the details.

The major difference with the NBA is that the players can go over their share. It's a sliding scale from 49-51%, and it's possible for players to go 6% over that without any changes to revenue forecasts, cap, tax limit, etc. They can even go higher than that, but then they start changing things. From what I've read, it seems unlikely the players would go over by more than a small amount. They hold 10% in escrow, so team payrolls would have to be a larger amount than that over the cap.

The other major difference is the NBA has half as many players. I think the NHL players would be fine with a lower share if their average salary more than doubled.

The NFL has traditionally had a fairly weak union. The owners seem to roll over them pretty easily. Given the number of players, the massive revenues and the profit margins, you'd think the players would push harder for a better deal. The main difference is the amount of revenue. Like $9 billion in the NFL. I'm sure the NHL players would be thrilled with half of that.

I have no problem with the NHL asking for a ~50% split, I just think they need to rely on revenue growth to get there instead of expecting it this year and rolling back salaries. From Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like the players mind that idea either, provided revenues grow fast enough.

#2330984 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 08 October 2012 - 05:20 PM

Please explain the point of this statement - it seems to just be confusing the debate. You are saying that it would have been entirely legal for owners to institute a league wide salary cap... without union involvement, correct? If so, you are proving my point in that the union is entirely unnecessary. Everything that was accomplished to salvage the NHL (grow league revenues) was done in spite of the union, not because of it.

So, please explain why we need a players union causing lockouts? What tangible benefits do us fans receive as a result of the NHLPA? The league could exist without the NHLPA... but not the other way around.

There is no actual "pro sports anti-trust exemption". MLB was exempt until 1998, but now it's a limited exemption. The NFL has a limited exemption as well. The Clayton Act contained a labor exemption, which basically made unions exempt from anti-trust liability.

That exemption was used to derive the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption. That basically says that a CBA takes precedence over anti-trust laws. i.e. A CBA can contain terms that would otherwise violate labor laws.

Since that exemption requires a CBA, and a CBA requires a union...the union is in fact entirely necessary. Without the union agreeing to the hard cap, half or more of the league's teams would likely have gone bankrupt by now.

#2330597 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 03 October 2012 - 02:25 PM

I suppose we can agree to disagree then. It should at least concern anyone who is pro-NHLPA and anti-owner when their side waits until the last minute to negotiate and their side is the big beneficiary of the last deal.

As for the motivations behind both sides, I really don't know how we got to this point. The players don't want to give that much and the owners want to take more than the players want to give. No common middle ground? Can't figure out how to split a $3 billion dollar pot? The owners locking the players out doesn't put the blame on the owners 100% thats for sure. Both sides need a swift kick in the ass and a mediator.

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap.

The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset.

If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.

#2330542 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 02 October 2012 - 11:51 PM

...Once again, we don't know what would have happened with more time because we don't have it today. Its easy to dismiss this claim as a mere formality, but the simple fact of the matter is that with more time, this lockout could have been avoided. We don't know for sure one way or the other, ...

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame?

...As it turned out, we all saw two sides that were monumentally greedy. ...

I hate it when people talk about greed.

Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.

#2330310 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 29 September 2012 - 10:59 AM

I have to agree with you. Negotiating a CBA involves taking the best proposals from each side and taking small steps forward and meeting in the middle somewhere. As has been said in this thread, two sides whom have a good rapport with each other could hammer out a CBA in 2 hours. Fehr went down on his initial proposal, the NHL did not.

Now you mention that Fehr has went down on each and every proposal since the initial one, to which I am going to call you out on because there has been no evidence that Fehr has done that. There has been plenty of discussion on the initial proposals, but each subsequent proposal has not been shared in the level of depth that would bring me to conclude what you are saying. I asked for some sources from you, which you have not been able to reveal. Hell, it would be nice to hear about the subsequent proposals from the NHL as well because I have heard the NHL has come down from their unfair initial proposals with each subsequent proposal. I don't know if that is true or not though, as nothing has been revealed in the press.

One thing is certain, the NHLPA has a much more fair proposal initially. The NHL has got to back down from these crazy demands and offer something that is much more fair. Meet in the middle so to speak.

Ok, I call bullcrap on that. Bargaining is all about ping pong. The NHL said it gave ground in one of its counterproposals, to which I don't know if that is true or not. But, if true, why isn't the NHLPA giving ground? Or, is the problem more likely a disconnect or lack of trust?

I think another full season is a possibility. Both sides have got to work together to make it happen. So far, I just don't get the impression that they want to work together.

FYI: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 is the PAs second (and most recent) proposal. Details of the first were never all that clear, but it seems the first three years were very similar (maybe identical), but the first had a 4th year at 57% instead of the two years described in that link.

The owners initial offer was well documented, their second was reportedly mostly the same, but changed the players share to 46%. Their last offer has few details, other than it was "simplified". Revenue split is also given in the link above. However, according to Bettman, that offer was taken off the table when the lockout started so the details don't really matter.

The PA has made two proposals. The 2nd was around ~2% less than the first. (Hard to say for sure, since the players are asking for a set $ amount rather than a set %. The % will depend on actual growth.)

The owners have made 3 proposals. The last around 5% higher than the first, though really it was the only one that was at least somewhat realistic. Also, it is supposed to be off the table now.

#2330061 [Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Posted by Buppy on 25 September 2012 - 11:31 PM

I think a fair and equitable agreement could be made at 52% for the players and 48% for the owners on the core economics side of things.

I would like to know why you think that I expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree? I have said numerous times that there is room for both sides to give something in these negotiations. The ownership can easily give back to the players just as much as the players can give back to the owners. Its not that hard to see that concessions can be made and they don't have to all come from one side.

Ok, so you think 52% would be fair. One would assume then that if the players were to propose that figure (and also agree to all the non-financial aspects proposed by the owners), and the owners refuse, you would change your stance and consider the owners to be wholly at fault for the continuing lockout.

Would that mean you would then have your head up the PAs ass, or you're some mindless sycophant blindly toeing the party line? You know, the same petty insults you want to hurl at everyone with a different opinion than yours.

By the way, if revenues were to grow at around 7.5%, the players proposal would work out to about 52%. And in any proposal, looked at from the perspective of where they were in the last CBA, ALL concessions are being made by the players. (Or at most, players might get a higher minimum salary, or rookie max. Their likely to give up money or rights on every other issue.) It's not really a concession just because the owners will settle for taking away less than they originally wanted to.

This is what I don't understand and maybe someone here can educate me.

I believe a fair and equitable agreement can be made between both sides. As has been pointed out numerous times, any two sides who were cooperative and were bargaining honestly could hammer out an agreement in a couple hours. I don't see many people on the sides of the owners here, and on the flip side I see many on the sides of the players. This makes sense due to the offers that were shelled out and Fehr's comments to the press. What I don't understand is why someone has to be either for or against one side. There is no looking at the big picture and seeing faults with both. There is no looking at the offers that were put forward and comparing/contrasting them.

I guess its a lot like religion or political preference. "If you aren't a (insert affiliate name here), then you are wrong" mentality. I guess that its time for fans to get mad, not take sides.

What I don't understand is why you think is has to be both sides at fault. Or why you think someone on one side or the other is suggesting that is "has" to be either/or. Speaking for myself, I don't think one side "has" to be right, I just think that in this situation, the PA "is" right. As I stated above, there seems to be a number at which you think the PA would be right, so...what makes your opinion on what that number is any more valid than mine? Who the f*** do you think you are that you want to throw insults at me because my idea of "fair" is a few percentage points higher than yours?

There is no objective "right" answer to a fair split. Personally, I believe the players are responsible for generating more of the revenue than the teams themselves. I think 4-5% is a fair profit margin for the owners, considering the team value is likely to appreciate at a similar rate (possibly higher if the team is profitable). I've looked at the numbers for recent years, and those numbers say that other expenses are around 40% or less of revenue. So I think 55-56% is a "fair" split. Under the PA proposal, it takes around 4.5% growth to realize a 5% margin (3.6 - 4.1% for 4%), which seems to be a realistic (maybe even conservative) growth estimate. (Though the longer the lockout lasts, the less realistic it is likely to be.)

I believe owners should be responsible for sticking to a budget their team can afford, or if they don't, they should accept the losses. I think it is the responsibility of the owners as a group to determine revenue sharing, and then to set the upper and lower limits accordingly to accommodate the revenue disparity between teams. If $8M below the midpoint (player's share) is too high a floor for too many teams, the owners have to lower the floor and raise the cap. Let the rich teams spend more to allow the poor teams to spend less. You shouldn't just ask the players to give up even more.

All that is why I am on the side of the players in this situation. If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine. But please stop insinuating that I (or others of similar opinion) are just mindless PA lickspittles. If you can't debate without resorting to childish insults, don't debate at all.

#2329942 Rebuild or retool?

Posted by Buppy on 24 September 2012 - 07:57 PM

... What do you think? Trade some of our top talent (not necessarily Dats or Z, in fact, don't even consider it because it won't happen) for up and coming prospects or trade some of our top prospects for proven talent?

No good reason to do either.

If we're talking rebuild, you have to consider moving Pav and/or Hank. Our 2nd tier is Franzen, Flip, Kronwall, maybe Jimmy...the return we'd get wouldn't make that big a difference. We'd just have more prospects and less room for potential UFAs. For Pav or Hank we could probably get a real potential stud (in addition to the top 5 pick we'd get for tanking the season).

We're in a bit of a tough spot, as we have several prospects with star potential, but who could end up being busts, or somewhere in between. By the time we really know which, our current top and 2nd-tier players will have lost much of their trade value. But that doesn't mean they'll be totally worthless and we should get out while we can. Nor that doing so necessarily means we'd be any better off in the future.

Better to just tough it out for now with what UFAs we can add and see what our current prospects will turn in to. Could be some players get made expendable, but we shouldn't go trading them until they are.

#2329666 Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k

Posted by Buppy on 21 September 2012 - 08:57 PM

The percentages have no meaning unless we know what all the clubs expenses are. Without this information now can anybody say what is a good deal or bad deal for either side.
And maybe 50% for doctors is fair. I have no clue.

We do know what the expenses are. For the first 6 years of the last CBA, average league-wide a little under $1.1B. Increasing by an average of around $58M/5.3% per year, though the increases have been lower in the last few years than the first few. They've averaged about 40% of gross revenue, but they're growing slower than revenue, so the percentages have been decreasing (39% in 10-11, the most recent year we have data for).

Overall, the league showed a little over 4% profit for the 10-11 season, which is not a bad margin. Under the player's proposal, if the league continues decent growth (5% or more), the margin would increase to the 6-12% range. The high end of that is very good (and the disparity between revenue and "Hockey Related Revenue" could add a couple points to those margins). For comparison, MLB had about 6.8%, NBA about 4.5%, NFL about 15% (all the more strange that they were able to keep the player's share so low...) per the most recent data available.

According to every bit of data available to us, what the players are proposing is a fair split. The onus should be completely on the owners to make that split work for each franchise, either through revenue sharing, widening the payroll range, relocating, or folding some franchises. If it came to folding some teams, then go to the players and see if they want to make further concessions to preserve some jobs.

The only thing that might be missing from the player's offer (financially, not considering any contract limits, etc) is some form of stop-loss in the event that revenues decrease or increase by less than the needed amount.

For reference, http://money.cnn.com...stries/profits/. Old, but the most recent data I could find showing profit as % of revenue.