poetica Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Poetica: My suggestion that profits exceeding a ownership % return on investment would be based on a pro-rated contribution to a stabilization fund. Whether 25% or 75% it retains an incentive for profitable teams to continue making money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Sounds like this make whole provision where the NHL moves a little might come in the form of an "escrow cap". I find this highly amusing. Isn't that the same as saying we will do 50/50, but then give you back 3% because of the escrow cap, so its really ~53/47 in year 1? They just don't want to use the words escrow or rollback and want it to say 50/50 even if it isn't? Is this what they are fighting over lmao!!! They want to use the word "cap" instead, just from terminology perspective because it sounds better. http://tinyurl.com/cnamygp Andy Strickland @andystrickland Talking to players...if #NHL moves on contract rigjts that dont hurt young or future players it could lead to #NHLPA vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Interesting article, Gizmo. Thanks for the link. I don't see how an escrow cap will ensure players' contracts are honored unless, as you suggested, the NHL gives on their demand for an immediate 50/50. If only a certain percentage can be put into escrow and the cap is significantly lower, that still means a rollback in salaries plus an additional loss to the escrow accounts which would no longer escrow but really just savings accounts for owners. The NHL's outright lying is one of my biggest problems with them throughout this whole thing. They need to be honest about what they're offering, call things what they are and stop trying to redefine words simply to fit their agenda. That's their propaganda specialist's influence and it only makes them seem to be more untrustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Is the meeting over? are we gonna get hockey back?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 The players don't like escrow, so having a cap on it would be a bargaining win. I think the point is, the balance of the earnings withheld would be paid back out of the owners pot in a later HRR year. To me, this is the equivalent of owners conceding 1% of their share until the mess clears? The parties can't have immediate 50/50, 50/50 every year of the deal, and still honour contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 The parties can't have immediate 50/50, 50/50 every year of the deal, and still honour contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCNeil Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 What I always find most irritating about arguing about what exact percent of HRR the players should get. 49% 50% 51% 57%. Just numbers. The players don't have any say in how much revenue is made. For instance. The NHL stubbornly wants to keep teams in cities that dont support their team. Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, Carolina, and others. Some of these cities will give you 4 tickets and all you can eat for $100. Move these teams. One to Seattle, one to Quebec City, one to the Toronto area, one to Kansas City, and one to Las Vegas. Something like this would completely trump the difference between 50% or 53%. But no when they want to move Phoenix to Ontario, its fought tooth and nail. Think of how much more HRR a second Toronto team would make over Phoenix.....$40-50 million a year? The NHL acts almost like the IOC. Do cities like Seattle need to wine and dine all the NHL execs first? Get them all hookers? Cash bribes? What? The winter classics are cash cows, why not have an American and Canadian version each year? When you have no control over how decisions like this get made. How important is the difference between 50 or 51% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 What I always find most irritating about arguing about what exact percent of HRR the players should get. 49% 50% 51% 57%. Just numbers. The players don't have any say in how much revenue is made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 ^^ if they move an existing team to TOR franchise fee = $0 If they expand with a new team in TOR franchise fee = $300 + million These guys are not billionaires because they are dumb. It's not as easy as many ppl on CDC make it. Move this team here that team there and problem solved. If you can think of it rest assured the NHL has also thought about it, the difference is they have researched it and have 100% info while you have .1% or less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 New York has three teams, I don't get why they don't have another team in the most profitable market. How about TOR is granted an expansion team. Let's grant MLSE exclusive rights and ownership to the second franchise. (no territory problem with approving this) An expansion fee of XXX% of that new teams revenue goes to revenue sharing pool for the upcoming CBA period. Upon completion of the CBA, an additional expansion fee is charged to separate the ownership into two groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 ^^ if they move an existing team to TOR franchise fee = $0 If they expand with a new team in TOR franchise fee = $300 + million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Hopefully they can get a deal done within the next two weeks . Im really enjoying some of the posts in this thread. Very well thought out, and some very good points also. (Poetica, Elvis, Gizmo, Boudrias, nateb123). Fwybwed not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Well they won't grant another franchise in VAN, so what does an owner do to increase revenue? You buy the farm team and move it local. I'm pretty sure many would go to watch games in Abbotsford to watch our prospects, and I welcome that thought for many reasons. Bottom line though, it's a smart business move. Toronto is overdue for an expansion, and surely I can't see how they could lose money? I suppose there is the Buffalo argument, but just locate the expansion team appropriately then. Untapped cash could solve a lot of problems instead of fighting over player salary. http://tinyurl.com/athhaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlayStation Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 “@Real_ESPNLeBrun: I wouldn't read anything into it either way but Bill Daly and Steve Fehr still meeting ...” Dont read too much into it... But this is CDC so read deep into it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 They've spoke all day, so at least it's something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 “@Real_ESPNLeBrun: I wouldn't read anything into it either way but Bill Daly and Steve Fehr still meeting ...” Dont read too much into it... But this is CDC so read deep into it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmen81 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 “@Real_ESPNLeBrun: I wouldn't read anything into it either way but Bill Daly and Steve Fehr still meeting ...” Dont read too much into it... But this is CDC so read deep into it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 N.H.L. Resumes Labor Talks, but Insists Classic Is Off The cancellation of the Winter Classic on Friday may prove to be a catalyst for a solution to the seven-week-old N.H.L. lockout. On Saturday, less than 24 hours after the cancellation of the N.H.L.’s signature regular-season event, the league and the players union negotiated for the first time since Oct. 18. Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly and Steve Fehr, the union’s special counsel, met for talks at an undisclosed location. Neither side issued a statement characterizing the talks, and Daly declined to comment in an e-mail message Saturday night. On the union side, the loss of the Winter Classic was a sobering note. Privately, union officials had said for months that they expected the league to cancel the game as a negotiating tactic. They said they expected the game at Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor to be restored to the schedule, either on Jan. 1 or later, once a settlement was reached. “I don’t know why that needs to be canceled,” the Rangers’ Brad Richards told reporters Friday, reflecting the belief of the union leadership. “You can play it in February. The stadium’s not going anywhere.” But the league was unequivocal in announcing that the Red Wings-Maple Leafs Winter Classic and related games at Detroit’s Comerica Park would not happen this season and would be pushed to 2013-14. Refund procedures were announced for ticket buyers. Daly said in several e-mail messages last week that the league had no plan or intention to “resurrect” the game this season. Independent business executives involved with the league, like those in sports management and marketing firms, have said that a cancellation two months ahead of the Jan. 1 game would be necessary because of the complex logistics of what has become an enormous event. Saturday’s negotiations, which the league initiated after nearly two weeks of objections from the union to return to the bargaining table, followed a week of preliminary phone conversations between Daly and Fehr. On Oct. 18, N.H.L. Commissioner Gary Bettman took just minutes to reject three proposals from the players union. He and Daly rejected subsequent union offers to reopen negotiations. That changed Saturday. The resumption of talks signaled potential movement past what had been a major stumbling block: the league’s proposal to “make whole” existing contracts against salary reductions as it lowers the players’ split of overall revenue to 50 percent from 57 percent in the first year of a new deal. Donald Fehrhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/donald_fehr/index.html?inline=nyt-per' rel="external nofollow">, the union’s executive director, said the N.H.L.’s provision amounted to “players paying players,” but the league may be changing its stance. According to the Canadian network TSN, the N.H.L. is offering to shift the financial burden of preserving the full value of existing contracts from the players’ side to the owners’. Donald Fehr, in a memo late Friday, told players and agents that they “should not read too much” into reports of a new stance by the league. But if a revised league proposal on existing contracts is met favorably by union negotiators, it would be a sign of real progress. The union has already agreed to a 50 percent revenue split, though only after a gradual lowering that enables existing contracts to be honored in full. It has also agreed to an immediate drop to 50 percent if all existing contracts are fully paid. That Saturday’s talks were held in an undisclosed location — the first time that has happened since talks began last summer — would seem an indication of how serious both sides are. The renewed movement apparently comes too late to save this season’s Winter Classic, but its cancellation seems to have awakened both sides — and particularly the owners — to the need for immediate action. The loss of the N.H.L.’s biggest regular-season event is disastrous to a league that vastly improved its image in recent years. Now the overriding impression of the N.H.L. is not that of the league that presents a snow-globe outdoor rink surrounded by 100,000 fans, but of a league in its third lockout since the 1994-95 season — all during Bettman’s tenure. Already the N.H.L. is the only league to lose an entire season, 2004-5, to a lockout. The cancellation of the Winter Classic may have driven home to Bettman and the owners that if they do not move off their hard line in negotiations, they are in danger of losing a second entire season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 They're still meeting?? It's taking so long, but its good though! progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 NHL HOCKEY IS BACK BABY!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.