Quote:
Originally Posted by JackIsBack
I wasn't suggesting they would or would not - I was just explaining why I don't think it's bad for the players.
BUT....
Why wouldn't the NHLPA want them? They are a way of making the revenue split work in their favor. Let's say the NHL stays at a 50/50 split - compliance buyouts make it so that the money some players are paid remains outside that split - so in effect its 49 owners 51 players (just an example).
OT: Can you imagine employee costs at 50% of your overall revenue in any other business, no wonder a drink at a game costs so much.
|
Compliance buyouts still count against the players' share of revenue. They potentially give teams more cap space to work with, but for the players, all it ultimately does is increase how much is held back in escrow.
A small number of players will be able to leverage the extra cap space into larger contracts, but for most of the players, it just means receiving less of the money they're supposed to receive.
As to your other point, you really can't look at the players as just any other employee. They are the product. They are the reason people are paying what they are for tickets. I don't know if 50/50 is what the split should be, but I do know that the players aren't your typical employee.