Could someone please write “COST CERTAINTY DOESN’T GET ANY MORE CERTAIN THAN A GUARANTEE OF 57% OF THE REVENUES GOING TO PLAYERS AND ANY EXCESS IS RETURNED TO THE OWNERS THROUGH ESCROW” on a two-by-four and start beating people over the head with it?

I’d be much obliged. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/09/08 at 05:47 PM ET

Hell, it’s right in the Bill Daly quote in the article:
“The lockout was never about lowering player salaries per se, it was about making sure that what our clubs pay our players bears a reasonable relationship to the revenues the sport generates.”

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 07/09/08 at 06:07 PM ET

The writer is a former spokesman for the PA under Goodenow.

Posted by Bruha on 07/09/08 at 06:14 PM ET

I’m with Baroque. I’m sick of reading this same column from a small handful of writers that don’t understand the whole 57% thing.

Any “cost uncertainty” is due to these organizations mismanaging the rest of their operation (and even some of the problems with the “certain” player costs are due to mismanagement).

Posted by Nathan on 07/09/08 at 09:42 PM ET

Did any of you, besides Shane, read the article?  The only controversial statement is this: “While Bettman would never publicly condone the money that several clubs tossed at players this past week, the NHL office can’t be happy about the more than $725-million (all currency U.S.) that clubs spent in the past nine days to re-up some of their own players and lure new talent.”  The “NHL office” hasn’t indicated how it feels, that’s speculation on the author’s part. Otherwise, the article is presenting a couple of ways that hockey people and fans are trying to “digest” the massive amount of spending during the FA period and the rise of the cap.

Posted by PDXWing from Portland, OR on 07/09/08 at 11:03 PM ET

Yes, I read it - that’s why the inclusion of the entirely unneccesary comments on cost certainly bugged me.  There was no need for it in an article about why the contracts were the way they were, because the concept of cost certainty had nothing to do with it.  Should have been edited out as irrelevent filler.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 07/10/08 at 05:56 AM ET

Yes, I read it - that’s why the inclusion of the entirely unneccesary comments on cost certainly bugged me.  There was no need for it in an article about why the contracts were the way they were, because the concept of cost certainty had nothing to do with it.  Should have been edited out as irrelevent filler.

Thank you.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 07/10/08 at 10:13 AM ET

Is there a salary cap in place?

Yes?

Then costs are certain, dips***.  Shut up and write an article with some real analysis.

(I know no one’s going to top Baroque’s entry, but I felt the inclination to vent, anyway.  God, what an idiot.)

Posted by Doogie2K from Calgary, AB on 07/10/08 at 01:05 PM ET