Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
Of course it can be negotiated.
But the third word in the acronym is Revenues. Expansion fees are not revenues. The players can fight all they want, but expansion fees are never going to be on the table.
When the owners of a business sell, or invite in new partners, the employees are not part of the deal.
|
WRT the bolded, employee salaries are not calculated as a share of revenues in most other businesses either. But it was collectively bargained in this case.
I can obviously understand why owners would want no part of this and it's not hard to identify points that support that position.
Marty Walsh has come out and said they are eyeing expansion fees and it's not hard to see why. if The NHL goes to say 36 teams in next 10 years that is easily another $5 Billion in fees.
Expansion fees are not exactly the same as proceeds from selling a team. And when owners cry about losing money, whether it is in arena negotiations or labor negotiations, players/municipalities/taxpayers should rightfully rebut this point with expansion fees. If that results in players getting a higher share of HRR without changing the definition, then the same objective is accomplished. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this tactic.