It is a pretty interesting read. I wonder who the player is?
To me the best point he makes is:
His proposed soft-cap/luxury tax system I think is an interesting one as well, though I agree that it'll likely never happen.
And touches on another big point that doesn't get talked about a lot, but is starting to with the new CBA negotiations. Hockey Related Revenue. Not only do owners want to reduce the percentage of HRR that the players get, they want to change what constitutes HRR. And it's safe to say they're not going to end up with a larger number when they change the definition.
I'd be curious to know what currently does and does not constitute HRR.
To summarize what is defined as HRR in the CBA:
1) Regular season & playoff gate receipts
2) Pre-season games
3) Special games with the exception of All-Star games
4) National, International, & National Digital broadcast revenues
5) Revenues from the NHL network
6) Local cable, over-the-air, satellite, & radio broadcasts
7) Club internet
9) In-arena & non-arena novelty sales
11) Luxury boxes/suites & club/premium seats
12) Fixed signage & arena sponsorships
13) Temporary signage & club sponsorships
14) Dasherboard advertising
16) Other revenues i.e. league sponsored events, sale of game used equipment, sale of special memberships, etc.
And based on the legalese in the CBA, you have to assume owners are already playing fast & loose with what is & is not HRR within those categories and that they're going to try to get some of them removed in the next CBA. Not only do they want to reduce the player's share, they want to reduce the size of the pool they play in too.
- 55fan likes this