sQuish Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Question was answered further down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted September 4, 2012 Author Share Posted September 4, 2012 Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”: There won't be a lockout. Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04. That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down. All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts. Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share. A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners. Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past. Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership. He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director. Role of agents? In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr. Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails. I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal. http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Every team can pay players anywhere between 54M and 70M. The players are employee's not partners. Why should an owner that is selling out every game have to split money with a team that isn't even drawing 8 000 a game? In Vancouver's case we have 18 000+ potentional people buying food and drinks every game, unlike other cities that have to give 4 tickets,4 hot dogs and 4 pops for $99 just to get people in the building. Why would an owner that is losing money want to change anything if he is going to get money from the league to possibly break even every year? Screw the players, they make enough as is, lets see what kind of job they can get other then hockey out in the real world and see how much they make. Bring in replacement players if the players complain they can't live on an average of 2.2M a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”: There won't be a lockout. Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04. That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down. All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts. Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share. A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners. Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past. Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership. He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director. Role of agents? In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr. Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails. I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal. http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Q: How exactly does the player revenue sharing system work? In the current CBA, the players receive 57% of revenue. 2011-2012 revenue was about 3.3 billion. Does this mean that after the season 1.88 billion gets distributed evenly to all players in addition to their regular contracted salary? (e.g. let's say there are about 1000 members, each player get an additional $181,000?) So if they're talking about reducing that to 46% in the NHL's latest proposal... the players would instead receive 1.518 billion, which divided by 1000 players is $151,800. Are these people really arguing about getting an additional 30 grand each season, when they're making MILLIONS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The owners originally asked for twice as much as they wanted, hoping to meet half-way. Example: Players currently get 57%. Owners want it to be 50/50. So double the difference, and you get?...43%. Fehr didn't even really repond to that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 One thing we know for certain : 11 days until the CBA expires Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sQuish Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 No. The players' combined salaries add up to 57% of the league's total revenues. The proposal is to reduce that percentage. Basically, with 23 man rosters there are 690 NHL jobs available. League revenues are at $3.3B, that would mean the average salary would be about $2.7M (at 57%). If you reduce the players' share to 46%, the average would be about $2.2M. Revenue sharing is referring to how the teams that make money share with the teams that don't make money to try and ensure a level playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Watch how fast I cancel my seasons tickets if they make me pay for that! Speaking of which, how will the canucks handle payments seasons tickets holders have already paid should the season not happen. It's safe to say that at least the preseason being toast is a given when can I expect that money back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”: There won't be a lockout. Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04. That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down. All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts. Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share. A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners. Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past. Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership. He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director. Role of agents? In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr. Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails. I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal. http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 No way in hell the owners make a deal. Some of the owners could care less if there's a season at all. Others would be more than happy to see it start at Christmas. Put those together and you have a large majority (aka all but the Canadian teams plus maybe one or two more) who wouldn't dream of signing an agreement if they think they can get even the same deal in December. That's why your seeing the super lowball offers - they could care less if the players sign on or not. The only question is that when Christmas rolls around the players figure it's not worth playing half a season when they have alternate gigs in Europe and for the most part are already multimillionaire and decide to stick it the owner and play hardball right back when December rolls around. That's what's going to decide if there's a season at all...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samurai Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 There will be a lock out and I suspect it could be long. As of last Friday the NHL said it has nothing to say because it can't until the players respond to the proposal. The players have said that the NHL took a recess and are waiting for them to get back to them (Bettman said the NHL did not request a recess just that there is nothing to talk about). I am not really sure of what to make of Fehr. My feeling is that he has built a discourse that the players have almost religiously bought into, but the NHL as 'the house' are refusing to use the language or framework. The players may have gotten themselves the smartest guy in the room, but he doesn't seem to want to negotiate within the discourse and parameters that the NHL is insisting upon. This seems a rather dumb move by the players and Fehr because at the end of the day the NHL will have its way. The house always wins in the end. I have been involved in union negotiations and the people that sign the pay forms have a lot of leverage. My view is that Fehr's approach is miss timed, first something as radical as it is, should be done a lot earlier and not necessarily during collective bargaining. Perhaps he knows what he is doing but it seems to me that the NHL will not accept his proposal and therefore he has backed the players into a situation where they are going to have to abandon the thing they see as brilliant. I could see something like the NHL agreeing to give the ideas more consideration down the road (face saving for the players)and in exchange for entering the parameters of how the NHL wants things done. If Fehr is as smart as people thinks he is he is going to tell his players that they will have to take cuts or lose salary and the season and then like before settle for the cuts. I will be thoroughly impressed with him if he can do that. Players salaries will be cut whether it is this week next or 2 years from now. Fehr's game has been called. For Bettman as much as i am not a fan I do think his position as he has stated is quite clear - we want more money and we are willing to meet somewhere in the middle with the players. If i had to negotiate against one of these two I would take Bettman because he seems to want to get a deal done now and realizes that he needs to do it in a fair and as painless a manner. Fehr is trying to be too clever . http://video.forbes....valuations-2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Habitat Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Talks on again? http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/09/05/recess-is-over-nhl-and-nhlpa-talks-resume-behind-the-scenes-reports-peter-adler/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErnieVan Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I’m putting this in this thread I hope it makes sense to you. I’ve been listening to the commentators and experts all talking about what will happen if the CAP goes down as the NHL wants to make it $58M next year then each year after to $60M, $62M, $64.2M, $67.6M and in the last year $71.1M. They have said that teams will have to dump salary, move contracts to AHL or have some one time buyout plan. But none of this makes any sense to me. First the NHL told teams to spend to the $70M CAP, why would they then penalize those teams? I did some quick math and there are 16 teams over the $58M CAP (Boston, Minnesota, Vancouver, Calgary, Philadelphia, San Jose, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Edmonton, Chicago, Los Angles, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington, and New York Rangers) for a combined $87.88M over the CAP. The remaining 14 teams are under the CAP by $60.71M. So if the bottom teams took on those salaries there would be a short fall of $27.17M which would have to be bought out or moved to somewhere else (like the AHL). That number seems doable except that the bottom 8 Teams (Colorado, Florida, St. Louis, Dallas, Winnipeg, New York Islanders and Phoenix = $51.49M under CAP) don’t spend to the CAP in most cases they only spend to the CAP floor. So if those teams won’t spend more that leaves 6 teams (Columbus, Carolina, Detroit, New Jersey, Anaheim, and Nashville) with only $9.22M ($60.71M - $51.49M =$9.22M) in available CAP space. That means that $78.66M would have to be bought out or moved. That just doesn’t make any sense! In case I lost you in the math here’s a complete breakdown: 16 Teams over $87.88M Next 6 Teams under $9.22M Bottom 8 Teams under $51.49M Total for the bottom 14 teams under $60.71M Total 16 teams over minus the total 14 teams under ($87.88M - $60.71M = $27.17M) Total 16 teams over minus the next 6 teams under ($87.88 - $9.22 = $78.66M) There is no way that the majority of teams can accept the loss of so many players or that the NHLPA would agree to have so many veteran players (the major or the salaries would have to come from older players on larger contracts) to lose their jobs or play in the AHL. So here is what I think the NHL has to do. The CAP is going down by 17% so why not adjust all players CAP hits by 17%. This would only apply to contracts signed under the old CBA. This doesn’t change what the player’s salaries are just their CAP hits. New contracts would be whatever is in the new CBA. Now the only question is this a onetime only or do you adjust these CAP hits each year? So in 2013-14 it would be 14%, then 11.4%, 8%, 3% and finally back to their original CAP hit. So for example let’s take Kesler at $5M and Garrison at $4.6M CAP hits: 2012-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 Ryan $4.15M $4.3M $4.43M $4.6M Jason $3.818M $3.96M $4.08M $4.23 $4.46 $4.6 This seems to me to be the simplest solution and fairest. It allows GMs to be able to spend knowing what their CAP hits are and what room they have in the future. Anyway that’s how I think it should be sorted out. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Okay, let's get to the fastest and simplest way of resolving the CBA and avoiding another lockout. We get both sides together and into the board room with LOTS of Coffee (maybe laced with a little herbal laxative) We then lock the doors and refuse to open them for bathroom breaks until they can slide at least a signed letter of understanding under the door. I'd expect the whole process to take about 3 - 4 hours depending on how strong the laxative is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 If I'm a player and signed a contract at x dollars and not x percent of the cap max I would sue everybody involved with reducing my pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Seriously, if they were to do a 3 - 4 year roll back on % of the cap allocated to the PA (NHL would probably go for this as it meets their objectives) Do a 1.5% reduction first year, 2.5% second year, 2% third year and 1% fourth year. That would bring them back down to 50/50 on revenue split and its not likely that anyone would be reduced in salary as league revenue will continue to grow and likely outpace those reductions. I think the average has been over 3% growth. Make entry level contract 4 years and cap the amount of bonus money that they can receive Continue to allow lifetime contracts but require them to expire before 36th birthday and last year can not be less than 50% of combined first year bonus and salary. After 35, 2 year maximum contract length. That should fix most of the outstanding issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 To answer your question ErnieVan it would be a rollback to players salaries, that's always been the proposal. You went on a bit of a tangent after that. The Cap decreasing from 70mil to 58 mil would mean a 17% rollback in player salaries, the Sedins would make ~4.6mil from 6.1 mil deals that they signed. The players have every right to be fuming. I still feel that the player's proposal to freeze the cap for the next 3 years is more than reasonable. The NHL predicts the cap hit to be back at that value (71.1mil) in 4 years anyway, so the difference should be a smaller issue. If the NHLPA is willing to make concessions then they should do so, but not at the expense of current player's salaries which is why their proposal was so brilliant. Decreasing HHR to 50/50 is probably the best medium, this should be a gradual process though without changing the current pay structure. I really wish the NHL side could acknowledge that the PA's side's biggest issue with the cap decreasing. Likewise, the NHLPA must acknowledge the owners want greater HHR. There's a medium - the two sides just need to find it. Informal talks began yesterday, formal meeting expected on the 10th - last ditch effort for the season to start on time. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Informal letters going around from league and nhlpa... Let the lockout of the year begin!!! Watch the losses and fans vanish over the coming months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.