gizmo2337 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The more and more I read it that seems more correct than my original assumption, and if Mirtle's correct then that is what it is. A 7 year deal starting at $10M and going down to $4M would end up with a $7M cap hit - not enough to be completely back diving, but perhaps enough to allow GMs the chance to build their teams better than other GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Well I suppose this is one of those "clarification" things to be discovered over the next couple days. I read it the same as you guys at first, but realized it is worded 10% year to year, but that first year defines the amount. James Mirtle @mirtle Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Shirokov Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 They are way too close not to get a deal done. If they cancelled the season because they can t agree on a 1-2 year difference in contracting rights, then both Fehr and Bettman are gonna lose their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 They are way too close not to get a deal done. If they cancelled the season because they can t agree on a 1-2 year difference in contracting rights, then both Fehr and Bettman are gonna lose their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The deal will get done. The true pressure point hasn't been reached yet. Both parties are still playing games with each other. Fehr knows that Bettman is still holding their best offer and Bettman is waiting for the PA's best offer. Both offers will come together at the pressure point and a deal will get done 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I find it amusing that there appears to be a universal assumption that HRR revenue will not go down. While fans speculate about how their teams will comply with the new CAP consider a further drop of 10 - 15 %. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiseupsucker Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 What I find amusing is that people talk about these vast sums of money like its guaranteed, when there's people like me(and presumably more) who will never buy another 11 game pack or anything NHL related ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 What I find amusing is that people talk about these vast sums of money like its guaranteed, when there's people like me(and presumably more) who will never buy another 11 game pack or anything NHL related ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panelguy Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 According to Willie Mitchell if the team decides to buy out a contract, the money would come out of the players 50/50 revenue portion. That's a concession on the owners side? I don't think so ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiDeN Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Yeah, talking about boycotting is just silly. You might last one season, or another, but you'll be crawling back like the rest of us. For every ticket that you don't buy there will be someone filling your seat. The only one suffering will be you. I got Canuck socks and boxers for Christmas. Hooray. I get to go with a sports writer to an Oilers vs. Canucks game, and go to tour all the facilities, and post game interviews, and press conferences! Why the hell would I boycott that? Why are we all here on CDC paying advertising money to the NHL? Cause we like NHL hockey. Boycott... ha. my arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share Posted December 29, 2012 @DarrenDreger CBA conf calls\discussions expected to drift into early evening. Told calls are purely "informational." No bargaining going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sting Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 But for every angry fan NOT renewing their season tickets there are 3 that want those seats, at least in good market teams locations like Vancouver. How long has the rink been sold out now? 11 years in a row? something like that. Lets face it, the struggling to put bums in the seats teams won't notice the hit so much since they were never a sold out show anyway..the exposure may actually increase sales. You would be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 It is another offer by the league that doesn't really change anything in regards to the pure number. In reality, the 50/50 split is the only key number. You can reword every other clause, but it makes no difference to the bottom line unless you are taking money out of the revenue split. Saying that buyouts will be allowed but it hits the players part of the revenue is actually something good for the league and not the players. It is the only way they can lower the cap from what it is mathematically. Effectively if you buy out a player, it will mean that you get to reduce the salary of your other players by that amount. There is simply no way to lower the cap to $60 million next season. Putting that in there is just a way to try to get the players to agree to other things. There just simply aren't enough dollars available in cap space to make it happen and actually be able to fill out rosters. All the cap ceiling teams would have to shed salary (Canucks would have $55 million in 2013-2014 and need to sign like 8 players).... yet the lower cap teams don't have money to take on those contracts. Add in the fact you can't hide contracts in the minors AND have to start counting salaries that are already in the minors... no way it can happen. Every UFA this coming summer would have to sign for league minimum to even have a chance to make it work. A formula similar to what the PA suggested where existing contracts are valued cap-wise at 83% of their value (a proportional drop from 57-50% revenue split) and paying a large amount of the difference out of the "make whole" money outside the system is the only real way to make it work if you aren't just going to roll back all salaries. Effectively the cap stays at the same $70 number until the revenues catch up... but the current contracts are calculated in a way to make it possible to fit under the cap. The Canucks current contracts would be worth about $56 million cap hit against a total cap of $59 million. You could gradually increase the % hit against the cap for the first 3 years to ease the transition period: Eg. 2012-2013 - Existing contracts have a 83% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 83% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue. Players will receive an additional 14% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. This pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. Pro-rating the season to 48 games, this uses up about $145-150 million of the "make whole" fund. 2013-2014 - Existing contracts have a 90% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 90% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue. Players will receive an additional 7% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. This pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. This would use up $90-95 million of the "Make Whole" fund (total $235-245 million with yr 1 & 2 combined) 2014-2015 - Existing contracts have a 95% cap hit of their existing cap value, and paid the same 83% in actual dollars within the "cap" system out of the player's share of revenue.. Players will receive an additional 2% of their contract out of "make whole" money for that year outside the player % or cap calculation. this pays a total of 97% of the existing contract value in actual dollars. The remaining difference (3%) will be dealt with using existing escrow process. This would use up $15-17 million of the "Make Whole" fund (total $250-262 million in all years combined... right around what the league has offered already) Remaining years of existing contracts will have a 100% cap hit of their existing cap value with no additional payments from "make whole" funds. Any remaining "make whole" funds are used to reduce any escrow amounts owed by players in the 2015-2016 contract year. (I would even put in a clause that "existing contracts" are defined by contracts signed before July 1st 2012 and any contracts that were signed DURING negotiations don't get the break on the salary cap calculation, but the players still get the actual dollar values as noted above. In the above transition type scenario it is very possible that revenue growth could mean that the players get all their escrow dollars back and even get paid more than the full value of their contracts in real dollars by the 3rd year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc44 Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 But for every angry fan NOT renewing their season tickets there are 3 that want those seats, at least in good market teams locations like Vancouver. How long has the rink been sold out now? 11 years in a row? something like that. Lets face it, the struggling to put bums in the seats teams won't notice the hit so much since they were never a sold out show anyway..the exposure may actually increase sales. You would be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The deal will get done. The true pressure point hasn't been reached yet. Both parties are still playing games with each other. Fehr knows that Bettman is still holding their best offer and Bettman is waiting for the PA's best offer. Both offers will come together at the pressure point and a deal will get done 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotesMagotes Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Could the PA honestly get a better offer without having the season cancelled?? Just take the god damn offer Fehr! My best guess is if they throw in a counter proposal the owners will be up in arms again and instead of another long stand off without any talking they will simply cancel the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 I think most people expected a deal in January, there's just no way they would cancel another season being this close. It really does seem like there's a timetable, how do they go from best offer, best offer again, not talking for weeks to all of the sudden a new proposal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Speaking of boycott, the only boycott that I think would work, would be players not signing with the "hawk" team owners. Force them to sign bums, and suddenly their arena isn't so full anymore. It *could* force some teams to change ownership, which would be good for the league. *cough* goodbye Jacobs. Is it legal for players to do this though and collectively boycott a few teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.