Why is it for hard for NHL players and owners to agree on a new deal?


when nfl , nba settled on 50/50 split of revenue die cast settlement. new deal 50/50 split, other issues falling in line. owners in opening salvo asked reversal of old split 57/43 in owners favour , reduction in other benefits. drew anger nhlpa , new boss, donald. response maintain status quo in revenue split , improvements in players benefits.
die cast. there old dictum in union employer relations. "an employer gets union deserves." draconian employer gets hard nosed union. fair employer gets fair union. behaviour begets behaviour.
problem when dust settles? of fair minded owners became part of negotiations , "traction" occurred. solution imminent 1 minor wrinkle hit process. nhl exists in both usa , canada. minor pension issue (simple in nfl, nba, , mlb) became major problem in nhl. here problem in nutshell. example phoenix , dallas went bankrupt. (could happen) players' receiving pension considerations these teams and/or have canadian ties cause problem canadian teams. (canadian law) seemingly small ($20mm) point cost canadian teams hundreds of millions of dollars. these same 7 teams, way, made money on 43/57 split. little bone being thrown players bigger revenue split leagues strongest members.
players need win settle agreement pensions aren't answer.

aren't players , owners rich?


Sports Hockey Next



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Connections Academy...?

SOMEONE WITH COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE PLEASE HELP ME!?

Is there any website which would tell the history if we provide the second name or surname?