Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#3121 brewdog

brewdog

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 356 posts
  • Joined: 30-June 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

If strong revenue sharing is required to keep the bottom-earning teams afloat, and if a good chunk of the top-earning teams are located in Canada, what happens if the Canadian dollar dips back down around $.70USD for any length of time? I'm no financier, but it seems like the most recent CBA and its "record revenues" largely coincided with a time when the Canadian dollar was abnormally strong. If our dollar dips back down, who gets bled to pay for those bottom-earning teams that can't sell a $25 lower-bowl ticket?
  • 0

#3122 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 07:54 AM

That would lead to a back-and-forth of what you consider a high-end UFA, so it's probably easier if you look that up.

Next time you engage me In conversation please quote my entire post.

Eberle, Hall, Kesler and Spezza were all RFA when they re-signed. Luongo was given one of the best contracts in the league and made captain to retain him. Iginla and Alfie are both Captains. Sedins and Kipper well they are Scandinavian and great ppl.

How many UFA's sign in EDM, WPG,OTT,CLG?


UFA's like Hudler getting @4 mill and Wideman @5.25 mill over multi year deals are the type of examples you listed. My point stands.

Any knowledgeable hockey fan knows big name UFA NHL players rarely come to Canada to play. Canucks have had some success lately because they are a top tier team. Hamhuis and Garrison signed here.

Do you really think there was a chance of Suter and/or Parise signing in Winnipeg

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 November 2012 - 11:58 AM.

  • 0

#3123 Green Building

Green Building

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,548 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:01 AM

http://thestar.blogs...his-league.html



November 22, 2012


The Generation That Built This League



The amazing thing about talking to NHL pensioners about the way in which their interests are not being represented at the table in current CBA as described in The Star today is that none really have much negative to say about today's owners or players.
Milt Schmidt, who is in limbo along with hundreds of former players about important Senior Benefits that require a new agreement between the NHL and NHLPA, says he's "grateful" for the decision in 2005 that gave players those benefits and doesn't resent modern-day players for the money they make.

"More power to 'em!" says Schmidt, a member of Boston's famed Kraut Line along with Bobby Bauer and Woody Dumart. "I can thank the good game of hockey for everything I have."
None express bitterness over the fact that current players - Erik Cole is the latest example - talk in grand, vague terms about fighting for the rights of future players, but don't seem to have the same regard for the rights and needs of players who skated in the NHL in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
Bob Nevin was one of six players in the Montreal hotel room back in 1967 when the NHLPA was first recognized by NHL owners.

"That union was hard fought for," he says. "But it ended up doing not as much as what we hoped for."
Nevin's pension for playing 1,128 NHL games is $8,500 a year.
"I remember Clarence Campbell saying we had the best pension in sports," says Nevin. "I'll remember that until the day I die. What was he talking about?"

At issue today is the monies owed players 65 and older as part of the Senior Benefit Plan established in 2005 by a letter agreement accompanying that year's collective bargaining agreement. The Senior Benefit is funded by $2 million annually from the NHLPA matched by the NHL. It is not legally part of their pensions nor part of the actual CBA, but it expired when the old CBA did.
Ex-players over the age of 65, or their surviving widows, receive $1,380 for every season played. Current NHL Alumni executive director Mark Napier is hoping to have the pool of money increased. Ex-players are owed their next payment in January, but without a new CBA, they may not get it.
Ex-Leaf Danny Lewicki says he hopes that today's players understand why they should support older players."I hope they realize what players went through for the love of the game," he says. "It wasn't for money, I can tell you that."

Lewicki remembers making his highest salary of $12,500 while with the New York Rangers, and then approaching GM Muzz Patrick for a $2,000 raise after a good season.
"Muzz threw me out of his office," says Lewicki.
Lewicki said he was pleased when the NHL and NHLPA agreed seven years ago to start jointly funding the Senior Benefit Plan, which expired when the current CBA expired Sept. 15.
"I was gratified, but surprised. Very surprised," he said.

Wally Stanowski, 93, says he used to "hate" the Leafs because of the "cheap" way in which the club dealt with its former players. He said he was approached by Ken Dryden to attend the closing of Maple Leaf Gardens, but he was in Mexico at the time and the offer quickly disappeared because he would have needed to have his flight expenses covered.
Stanowski said current Leaf GM Brian Burke has softened his view. He said when he was invited to drop the puck at a Leaf game two years ago, Burke gave him 12 tickets for his family and sent a chauffered car to pick him up.
"Burke changed my mind," said Stanowski.

Stanowski won a Memorial Cup in 1938 with the St. Boniface Seals, a team that had only 10 players and a budget of $800 to cover TWO seasons.
Stanowski, who played for the Leafs between 1939 and 1948, said the most he made with the Leafs was $5,000 in a season, out of which $900 was deducted for his pension and was supposed to be matched by the owners.
"But no team ever did it," he says. "They just washed their hands of it."
Schmidt, by the way, had a message for Stanowski when he heard that I was interviewing both for today's story.

"One night Bill Barilko hit me so hard that I did a complete somersault," said Schmidt. "I landed on top of Stanowski. So thank him for the soft landing, will you?"
Stanowski is a huge baseball fan, but says he rarely watches today's hockey.
"I think it's terrible," he said. "They keep shooting the puck in and going after it. What happened to possession?"

Dallas Smith, 71, says he worries that if the Senior Benefit Plan isn't renewed, that the Emergency Players Fund that helps players in desperate need might also be lost.
He cites the experience of the late Fern Flaman, who suffered from cancer at the same time his wife was dealing with dementia.
"He needed help," says Smith. "He got some, but not as much as he needed."
Like most, he doesn't really pick sides in the current lockout, although he says in his day he had to "fight for every nickle" he could get in salary.
"I don't really blame the owners," he says. "But I hope to God something happens with our benefits. I don't think that (Donald) Fehr cares."


I found this to be an interesting read. I wonder if this topic has come up at all in these negotiations.

Edited by Green Building, 22 November 2012 - 08:02 AM.

  • 1

#3124 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 08:57 AM

Another player is losing his cool.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/jeff-o-neill-wants-whole-gary-bettman-head-233216966--nhl.html;_ylt=AnphzlMTqNmJRfyLLaP7IoF7vLYF;_ylu=X3oDMTN1bmkzbGdyBG1pdANGRUFUVVJFRCBNZWdhdHJvbiBOSEwEcGtnA2M1MGQyZDY3LTMzMWMtMzA0MC04YThjLTU4YjEzODNlMDU0MARwb3MDMwRzZWMDbWVnYXRyb24EdmVyAzQ2ZGU3YTgwLTM0MzYtMTFlMi1iYWVlLTIyODk3NWMxZGE0OA--;_ylg=X3oDMTFoYWo1YzR1BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANuaGwEcHQDc2VjdGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

The level of frustration is understandable, but its not only childish but its not even directed at the right party. The players seem to have this selfish view that they own half the league and are entitled to go head to head with the owners regarding important matters such as these.

They are having their butts handed to them, and are frustrated at the GALL the owners have pushing them around.

I have no idea how Fehr convinced them that he and his ego could walk in off the street and BULLY the NHL owners at their own game on their own turf.

The players are paying the price now and they only have themselves to blame.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3125 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:18 AM

Now a discussion worth having. Do we both agree that if cap hit were traded it would be beneficial to small market teams, while trading salary would be beneficial to larger markets in as much as their cap is untouched?


My original worries about trading cap and salary diminish somewhat if you bring in the %variance rule. Without the %variance, you could have either one of the following situations:
-front loaded contract (rich teams sign to minimize cap hit - Luongo)
-back loaded contract (poor teams sign to maximize time they can keep player - Tavares)
I think there can be an argument made for the %variance rule. The original spirit of not having that rule was to allow teams to plan cap and salary for multiple years and have flexibility on the spending timing and hitting cap targets. I think the %variance might actually hurt the owners if they don't leave enough wiggle room though.
  • 0

#3126 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:25 AM

The Whitecaps season is over...

Posted Image


The Lion's season is over....

Posted Image


VAN SPORTS FANS ARE GETTING ANTSY
IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS........GET ER DONE!!!!!


Get used to it. NHL Season is over. cold long wet winter in Van, no pro sports
  • 0

#3127 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:40 AM

If strong revenue sharing is required to keep the bottom-earning teams afloat, and if a good chunk of the top-earning teams are located in Canada, what happens if the Canadian dollar dips back down around $.70USD for any length of time? I'm no financier, but it seems like the most recent CBA and its "record revenues" largely coincided with a time when the Canadian dollar was abnormally strong. If our dollar dips back down, who gets bled to pay for those bottom-earning teams that can't sell a $25 lower-bowl ticket?

The way I read things the NHLPA wants a $ gurantee that their income will never fall below the previous year. I just cannot see the NHL ever agreeing to that. Both parties put forward revenue projections that were IMO over optimistic; NHL + 5% per year and NHLPA + 7% per year. These projections were made without knowing the full ramifications of a lockout as well.

Baseline has to be 50/50 now with a provision of making existing contracts whole over the term of the new CBA. The contracting detail should be negociable. The detail of the contracts can have significant $ impacts so both parties will be affected.
  • 0

#3128 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:33 AM

Two things.
First, if according to Bettman, the NHL is losing 18-20 million a day and the players are losing 8-10, that means the NHL is losing 10 doesn't it? So, I may be simple, but it would seem that the NHL is losing the greater percentage, or at the very least, an equal percentage? Wouldn't that suggest that the NHL already enjoys a greater share of the revenue split? I thought the premise was that the players were taking home the greater 57% share (or whatever)? Anyone care to explain Bettmanomics to me? It seems to me that there is yet another contradiction here - an admission of sorts - that the reality is not as it has been presented. If the players are losing 8 and the owners 10, then the owners are already taking home 56%, and if it's 10 and 10, then obviously already a 50/50 split. What would be the justification of the lockout?

Second, if the gap is 182 million, and the losses are 18-20 million a day, that would suggest that the lockout, which is in day 64, has caused losses of over a billion dollars - between 1 billion, 152 million and 1 billion, 280 million.

This would be the equivalent of you and I fighting over a day's pay - for seven full days - wouldn't it?

I was questioning these points as well,and... *sigh* ...just concluded that its yet another PR tactic used to mislead the public and possibly some of the players from the actual financial situation.If everyone legitimately wanted a fair solution and was simply transparent with one another regarding the actual financial situation, this would all be over. In fact it probably wouldn't have happened in the first place. But instead, its the deceitful (and egotistical) parties involved using both deceptive and malicious tactics to get the deal they want and calling it "fair".
  • 0

Posted Image


#3129 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:54 AM

Two things.
First, if according to Bettman, the NHL is losing 18-20 million a day and the players are losing 8-10, that means the NHL is losing 10 doesn't it? So, I may be simple, but it would seem that the NHL is losing the greater percentage, or at the very least, an equal percentage? Wouldn't that suggest that the NHL already enjoys a greater share of the revenue split? I thought the premise was that the players were taking home the greater 57% share (or whatever)? Anyone care to explain Bettmanomics to me?


The numbers from what 3rd party sources have gleaned are that the players and owners are currently splitting total revenue about 50/50 (maybe 49/51 in the player's favour). But the owners get to deduct a bunch of expenses before calculating hockey related revenue. Bettman has misled people by suggesting that the owners have been having to run their businesses with 43% of the take under the last agreement.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3130 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 10:55 AM

Now you got a long time NHL pro who has been through every lockout speaking his mind. He is sick of Fehr and his crap.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=410028


At this point the union has a choice. Same as I have stated all along.

They either try to defend Fehr''s EGO as a negotiator and make a whole pile of guys waste an entire year of their already short careers...........

Or they fire Fehr or have him step down and get a hockey guy to step up to the plate with Bettman to hammer a fair deal out.

There is no other choice. Nobody in their right mind honestly thinks hiring Fehr was worth it anymore. The most the union can hope for is to try to salvage some credibility for the next CBA down the road.

Cut your losses now and live to fight another day.


Funny how you neglect all of Cole's comments about his genuine care for future generations while continuing to try and pass off your extremely subjective opinion as some sort of fact.

Hamrlik has always been a bit of a disagreeable tool in my opinion. Always out for his own best interest alone.
  • 0

Posted Image


#3131 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:11 AM

My original worries about trading cap and salary diminish somewhat if you bring in the %variance rule. Without the %variance, you could have either one of the following situations:
-front loaded contract (rich teams sign to minimize cap hit - Luongo)
-back loaded contract (poor teams sign to maximize time they can keep player - Tavares)
I think there can be an argument made for the %variance rule. The original spirit of not having that rule was to allow teams to plan cap and salary for multiple years and have flexibility on the spending timing and hitting cap targets. I think the %variance might actually hurt the owners if they don't leave enough wiggle room though.


I guess that is true, but really having the cap/salary trading ability PLUS no variance rule make it possible to SERIOUSLY play with how rich and poor teams manage the cap. Rich teams could end up spending well over a $100 million in real salary dollars per year while only having a 60 million cap hit by having front-loaded contracts and retaining salary for players that they have ditched. Conversely the bottom teams could end up only spending $20 million in real dollars and having a $60 million cap hit by having a bunch of players on the end years of front loaded contracts AND players on retained salary transactions where a rich team is picking up most of the tab in real dollars.

It would take some real thinking to determine how far to allow it to go where it would be a good thing vs. affecting ability to compete. At first blush it seems like a pretty decent way to let the market do a kind of revenue sharing and allowing the bottom end teams to get some really good players at a low price.

On the negative side, it allows rich teams to basically throw the bank at any UFAs by offering signing bonus/front-loaded contracts without regard to how it will affect the cap down the road as they know they can always unload the guy by retaining some of his salary as well.

I suppose maybe you put it in with some limitations and then gradually see if it works well and if there are any unintended consequences. We are really only now getting into the territory where some of the early front-loaded contracts are moving into their years where the salary starts dropping below the cap hit.... who knows how the market for those contracts will actually play out.

In theory though, I do love the idea... imagine this scenario as an example of how it could work (by example I mean don't get all whiny about details like "Yzerman already got his goalie of the future.... blah blah" or "Lecavalier didn't want to go to Montreal because he doesn't like pressure")

To Vancouver:
Lecavalier - Tampa retains 50% of his cap hit

To Tampa Bay:
Luongo - Vancouver retains the bulk of his salary

Tampa has a budget in real dollars they have to work with, so being able to take $7 million off the books and only take on $2-3 million per year for Luongo works really well for them. They free up money to pay their younger guys and ice a better team overall.

Vancouver really only works with a cap ceiling budget and spending a few million dollars more in real salary to improve their on ice product is not a worry (like eating $2 million in Reinprecht salary last year). This trade frees up millions in cap space to pay an Edler raise next season and go out and grab another UFA. Lecavalier may not perform well enough for a $7 million cap hit... but at $3.5 he is likely a pretty good value. It would be hard to argue that we are a worse team with him on our 2nd line vs. Raymond.

This trade would be impossible under the old system but do-able under the new one.

Edited by Provost, 22 November 2012 - 11:11 AM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3132 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

Eberle, Hall, Kesler and Spezza were all RFA when they re-signed. Luongo was given one of the best contracts in the league and made captain to retain him. Iginla and Alfie are both Captains. Sedins and Kipper well they are Scandinavian and great ppl.

How many UFA's sign in EDM, WPG,OTT,CLG?


Way to move the goalposts man. You said that Canadian teams have trouble retaining their stars, which is just 100% false. As for UFAs, Calgary has Bouwmeester and Wideman, Ottawa signed Gonchar, etc., etc. You have no argument here.
  • 0

#3133 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:00 PM

The numbers from what 3rd party sources have gleaned are that the players and owners are currently splitting total revenue about 50/50 (maybe 49/51 in the player's favour). But the owners get to deduct a bunch of expenses before calculating hockey related revenue. Bettman has misled people by suggesting that the owners have been having to run their businesses with 43% of the take under the last agreement.

Don't remember Bettman sayin anything else but HRR is the basis, so where is the deceit? Totally OK for the NHLPA to question the authenticity of HRR numbers but I haven't seen Fehr doing that. Either he is OK with the numbers presented or this is a discussion they are having behind closed doors. Since the eventual agreement will be a % of HRR it is imperative that those numbers are accurate. Your assertion that some expenses are deducted unjustifiably isn't substantiated by the parties.
  • 0

#3134 boxiebrown

boxiebrown

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 640 posts
  • Joined: 06-May 08

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

Next time you engage me In conversation please quote my entire post.



UFA's like Hudler getting @4 mill and Wideman @5.25 mill over multi year deals are the type of examples you listed. My point stands.

Any knowledgeable hockey fan knows big name UFA NHL players rarely come to Canada to play. Canucks have had some success lately because they are a top tier team. Hamhuis and Garrison signed here.

Do you really think there was a chance of Suter and/or Parise signing in Winnipeg


Even if this is true, it has nothing to do with your original post on this subject, which said that the UFA age should go up because Canadian teams have trouble "retaining their stars." Since that's been proven wrong, you've changed your argument to "small market Canadian teams can't sign (arbitrarily defined) high end UFAs." Even that is debatable.

Look, of course there are teams that will have trouble marquee players. Winnipeg is one of those teams, but it has nothing to do with being Canadian. Columbus, Nashville, Florida, etc. would all have trouble. That's reality, and it's not a problem that needs fixing, especially when it's so easy to re-sign your home grown talent.
  • 0

#3135 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:06 PM

Way to move the goalposts man. You said that Canadian teams have trouble retaining their stars, which is just 100% false. As for UFAs, Calgary has Bouwmeester and Wideman, Ottawa signed Gonchar, etc., etc. You have no argument here.


You are completely uneducated you on the subject.

Eberle and Hall had no choice for another 5 years. Gonchar was willing to take less money to stay in PIT. The Pens wouldn't give him term. Bouwmeester is a rare commodity in the NHL, a local Alberta boy who got a great contract after Calgary traded for him before he became UFA, ahead of July 1st to negotiate with him.

Wideman would quit the NHL and play in your back yard for $26.25 million.

This is not an argument. You are just uninformed.

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 November 2012 - 12:07 PM.

  • 0

#3136 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

Even if this is true, it has nothing to do with your original post on this subject, which said that the UFA age should go up because Canadian teams have trouble "retaining their stars." Since that's been proven wrong, you've changed your argument to "small market Canadian teams can't sign (arbitrarily defined) high end UFAs." Even that is debatable.

Look, of course there are teams that will have trouble marquee players. Winnipeg is one of those teams, but it has nothing to do with being Canadian. Columbus, Nashville, Florida, etc. would all have trouble. That's reality, and it's not a problem that needs fixing, especially when it's so easy to re-sign your home grown talent.


Are you really not able to compute that if the UFA age was raised by a year Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg would be able to hold on to their players for another year?
  • 0

#3137 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:11 PM

Don't remember Bettman sayin anything else but HRR is the basis, so where is the deceit? Totally OK for the NHLPA to question the authenticity of HRR numbers but I haven't seen Fehr doing that. Either he is OK with the numbers presented or this is a discussion they are having behind closed doors. Since the eventual agreement will be a % of HRR it is imperative that those numbers are accurate. Your assertion that some expenses are deducted unjustifiably isn't substantiated by the parties.


I am not saying any of the deductions from HRR are unjustified at all... it is what was agreed upon in the last CBA. Bettman has repeatedly talked about the owners having to make due with running their businesses with 43% of the revenue. While not strictly lying because he does not specify HRR vs. total revenue, he has omitted the important piece of of information that revenue is already split 50/50 and he is talking only about HRR.

He is playing on the perception of fairness where 50/50 just sounds fair as it is an equal split. He NEVER talks about total revenue because that would be a much worse argument. If you talk to most people they don't really understand the distinction.

It is disingenuous, as are his comments about the damage to the game that is happening and how they are the victims of an unco-operative union. The league could be playing right now and incurring no damage if the owners were willing to let the regular course of labour relations take their course.
  • 1
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#3138 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:15 PM

The way I read things the NHLPA wants a $ gurantee that their income will never fall below the previous year. I just cannot see the NHL ever agreeing to that. Both parties put forward revenue projections that were IMO over optimistic; NHL + 5% per year and NHLPA + 7% per year. These projections were made without knowing the full ramifications of a lockout as well.


Since that rule only goes into effect in the 2nd year of the new CBA, the share requirement will be based on lockout damaged revenue. The effects from the lockout will almost certainly be upfront and then diminish with time. There's no reason I can think of that revenue would return to normal and then drop out of spite in 2 years. There certainly could be years where growth isn't as high as projected, but under the PA proposal players aren't guaranteed any increase from year to year, only that their share will not drop from year to year. As far as I know, NHL revenues have never gone backwards, even during some of the worst economic conditions in decades. Even after the last lockout, profits increased year to year.

Also, I believe the PA used the exact year-to-year projections the NHL made in there "see how far apart we are" charts for their last proposal (which is 2.5% growth of last year's revenue for the 2013/14 and then 5% growth for every year after that).

Edited by poetica, 22 November 2012 - 12:22 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#3139 thema

thema

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 991 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 12

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

The Owners have all the cards here, The only reason they don't cancel the season is because they are business men and any dollars they can make from salvaging this season will be great. Once reasons and costs a start to build then they will consider canceling the season.

Its my opinion that the NHLPA think that they are the product in this endevour, but they are not. They are but pawns and elite players are bishops. Many sons will hopefully play hockey when they get older and maybe play for the cup. Which they will only be able to do in ............ THe NHL~!

The product is the Jerseys, the Game, the Family outings, the Ice, the Logo, the Play offs, The Stanley Cup....but players come and go.


Wrong. The product is the game itself which doesn't exist without the players (NHL calibre players that is, not replacement players). No players, no product.
  • 0

#3140 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,162 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

Ya, I'm worried that teams like the Islanders will inevitably have a fire sale on some of their young stars, and competitive teams that don't match their asking price get shafted. The Islanders would theoretically want cheap contracts coming back, or else draft picks. So the Islanders stock up on picks, draft young guys, keep them till their ELCs are up, sign them, and then deal them to another team. Essentially teams like the Islanders would have a monopoly on young talent, but maybe I'm taking this too far.

They'd only be able to do so up to 15% of the cap, and moving young players who aren't as likely to be on significant contracts wouldn't gain them much in cap to begin with. The rules around being cap compliant are easily qualified by ensuring teams meet the cap floor with real contracts, not using unattainable bonuses or cap space gained in a trade.

So if the Islanders were right at the cap floor (or slightly above) and they wanted to move a player making $5M to save on costs, they'd have to take back similar salary still or risk being under. Here's another scenario:
- Islanders at $3M over the cap floor
- They trade a $5M player, putting them at -$2M before considering return from trade
- Return from trade is picks and a $2M player, putting them even with the cap floor
- Since that puts them even with the cap floor in real money, they could keep the extra $3M of the $5M player's cap hit (when balanced against the $2M player in return)
- They'd end up $3M over the cap floor again, but with the real number cap being even

I agree they'd have to account for that possibility of teams finding loopholes or else we will see issues, but it's reasonably simple to include provisions such as a real number cap that must meet or exceed the floor. The updated cap with the extra cap hits and bonuses would then only be compared to the cap ceiling to ensure it didn't exceed that.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#3141 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,330 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:18 PM

Another player is losing his cool.

http://sports.yahoo....dGlvbnM-;_ylv=3

The level of frustration is understandable, but its not only childish but its not even directed at the right party. The players seem to have this selfish view that they own half the league and are entitled to go head to head with the owners regarding important matters such as these.

They are having their butts handed to them, and are frustrated at the GALL the owners have pushing them around.

I have no idea how Fehr convinced them that he and his ego could walk in off the street and BULLY the NHL owners at their own game on their own turf.

The players are paying the price now and they only have themselves to blame.


O'Neill is not a NHL player.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3142 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:27 PM

Since that rule only goes into effect in the 2nd year of the new CBA, the share requirement will be based on lockout damaged revenue. The effects from the lockout will almost certainly be upfront and then diminish with time. There's no reason I can think of that revenue would return to normal and then drop out of spite in 2 years. There certainly could be years where growth isn't as high as projected, but under the PA proposal players aren't guaranteed any increase from year to year, only that their share will not drop from year to year. As far as I know, NHL revenues have never gone backwards, even during some of the worst economic conditions in decades. Even after the last lockout, profits year to year.

Also, I believe the PA used the exact year-to-year projections the NHL made in there "see how far apart we are" charts for their last proposal (which is 2.5% growth of last year's revenue for the 2013/14 and then 5% growth for every year after that).


Obviously Fehr and Betman think there is a good chance the revenue won't be as projected, hence the demand for guarantee $ by PA and refusal by NHL. If they both thought like you this would not be one of the main issues in these negotiations.

If the CAD goes down the NHL revenues will be hit hard. Over 5 years I can guarantee you the CAD will not be at par with USD.

As it stand the 7 Canadian teams generate 1/3 of NHL revenue. What would happen when the US economy gets stronger and the USD/CAD goes up? Remember a few years ago when the CAD was worth .65 cents? Canucks were a well fare team.
  • 0

#3143 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:30 PM

Wrong. The product is the game itself which doesn't exist without the players (NHL calibre players that is, not replacement players). No players, no product.


Wrong, NHL is the product. Players come and go, the league has value. Gretzky retired OV came in.

Not too much difference between NHL and KHL. Ask Evander Kane.
  • 0

#3144 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,162 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:35 PM

Wrong. The product is the game itself which doesn't exist without the players (NHL calibre players that is, not replacement players). No players, no product.

This. Revenues weren't at record levels even after the recession because the jerseys got nicer, the tickets got cheaper, or the cup got shinier.

Wrong, NHL is the product. Players come and go, the league has value. Gretzky retired OV came in.

Not too much difference between NHL and KHL. Ask Evander Kane.

You should see the attendance levels in the KHL if that's what you think.

Game featuring Chara, Ovechkin breaks KHL attendance record

Hmm, I wonder why that's a record attendance (16,304 fans) if it had nothing to do with the players being better? I also wonder why 21 of the 30 NHL teams averaged higher attendance than that record number last season?

Edited by elvis15, 22 November 2012 - 12:44 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#3145 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

This. Revenues weren't at record levels even after the recession because the jerseys got nicer, the tickets got cheaper, or the cup got shinier.


The biggest reason for revenues going up is the value of CAD going up vs the USD.
  • 0

#3146 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:44 PM

So, making a few assumptions (56m starting midpoint, 5% growth, 20% spread on cap, 7 year deal, and trading cap up to 10m)

I'm not sure if that spread means 20% between cap ceiling and cap floor, or 20% to midpoint? I'll assume 10% above and below for the moment.

year 1 50m 56m 61m
year 2 53m 59m 65m
year 3 56m 62m 68m
year 4 59m 65m 72m
year 5 ..
year 6..
year 7 67m 75m 83m

Since you could trade CAP up to 10m, at the end of the deal we could be with teams spending 57m to the floor (NYI), and 93m on the other end(NYR). If the growth is 7%, it looks even worse. Is this Bettman giving up on parity?
  • 0

#3147 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,162 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:53 PM

The biggest reason for revenues going up is the value of CAD going up vs the USD.

Ok, so even if we go on that, it means neither the players nor the NHL had anything to do with the most significant reason why revenues increased (or why fans spend their money). Do you see how that doesn't have anything to do with the context of the argument here?

Edited by elvis15, 22 November 2012 - 12:57 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#3148 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

This. Revenues weren't at record levels even after the recession because the jerseys got nicer, the tickets got cheaper, or the cup got shinier.


You should see the attendance levels in the KHL if that's what you think.

Game featuring Chara, Ovechkin breaks KHL attendance record

Hmm, I wonder why that's a record attendance (16,304 fans) if it had nothing to do with the players being better? I also wonder why 21 of the 30 NHL teams averaged higher attendance than that record number last season?


Rethink your post and come again.

Attendance PHX 12000 per game, MTL 21000+ per game.
  • 0

#3149 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 22 November 2012 - 12:59 PM

Ok, so even if we go on that, it means neither the players nor the NHL had anything to do with the most significant reason why revenues increased (or why fans spend their money). Do you see how that doesn't make sense in the context of the argument?


No I don't see how it doesn't make sense. When the league had 6 Canadian teams, Canadian teams made up for over 1/3 of the revenue. If/When the CAD comes down NHL revenue will take a hit. Simple as that.

1/5 of the league accounts for 1/3 or revenue.

$3 billion/ 3 = $1 billion. Reduce that $1 billion by 25% leaves you $2.75 billion. See how easy that is?

It would be stupid of any one to think so black and white. Of course the NHL has grown. The NBC deal is proof of that. But the value of CAD is a huge reason for increased revenues. Bettman and Fehr both know that and they both know CAD will come down once US economy recovers. That's why guarantee players seek is such a contentious issue in these negotiation.

Edited by WHL rocks, 22 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.

  • 0

#3150 Rey

Rey

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,606 posts
  • Joined: 07-March 09

Posted 22 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

Lots of respect to Hamrlik and Neuvirth for stepping up. We have been waiting for players to question the PA. Erik Cole is an idiot. His comments are just plain pathetic. He goes on saying that it's selfish but they says that they have to unite just because of the "respect" factor. What a joke, the guy doesn't even know what he's talking about. Too many injuries to the head for this guy.

I've said it all along. Owners and Bettman always will call the shots. The majority of players can't make the sacrifice to lose the money and season, and it's only the players with big contracts that are really being effected. Until someone steps up against the PA, this will go nowhere. Finally, players are starting to make a stand because if they don't. The Season will be over.

There has never been a reason for the Owners to crack. Latrendress is right, the longer they wait the worst the offer gets. Players will be making the same mistake they did in 2004, by losing money and the season when they will probably accept the same deal that was initially offered in the first place.

Edited by Rey, 22 November 2012 - 01:30 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.