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

#5461 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:54 PM

You think the lockout has given teams exposure ?

I think with the frequency of the NHL owners to show or in this case claim such financial instability and poor ability to run there multi billion dollar industry has finally started to really drive people away .

The last lockout the consensus was people agreed a salary cap was need and stuck it out through a full season cancellation cause when the nhl came back it also came back with new rule changes with improved hockey too

But this time its different , from what i have seen and read this time people have a much different opinion then the previous lockout situation

The NHL has takin fans for granted and figured after seeing the NBA and NFL get a 50/50 deal with there players they were going to do the same with out any ramifications but what they did not consider that this is the 3rd time that huge portions or complete seasons have now been lost and when you keep doing this people start to find other things to spend there money on and interest them self with .

I for one have been a fan of the NHL for 25 yrs and been through all of Bettmans labor issues and find myself in this situation this time around were things just seem different and just dont really care and im not sure if they come back if my interest will be the same

As someone else pointed out, you do care or you wouldn't have written that. I believe that if i were the boss of the NHL, say like Bettman appears to be, I would pay a couple million dollars to keep my ear to the ground and listen, through a hired company, to the fans. Not listen to what the fans think they are saying..but listen the fans feet and footsteps moreso. If any huge numbers of fans have shifted off the NHL you can bet they will know and react. But don't confuse fans loudly proclaiming their lack of interest with an actual loss of fans...it is quite the opposite. When we STOP loudly proclaiming and stop paying interest and time to them, that is when their hired listeners will push the alarm switch. See what I am saying?

EDIT: love and hate are just two sides of the same coin: its indifference that will scare both the players and the league into a deal, and so far I have not seen any sign of fan indifference. WHen we don't care and stop talking about the game, that is the sign of indifference...any thing else is just two sides of a coin that Fher and Bettman are currently fighting over whose pocket the coin ends up in.

Edited by Primal Optimist, 29 December 2012 - 02:56 PM.

  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5462 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

They aren't as close as you would think. I can see the players pushing back trying to get the hard cap for next season back up to 63-65m, as signing onto this current offer would mean 67m in cap dumped by the 16 teams currently over the 60m mark. It would be unprecedented for a union to sign an agreement that inevitably leaves a number of it's members without a job. On top of that, the NHL doesn't even want to pay the contracts of these potential buyouts, so as a player would you agree to pay for players that have stopped trying?

On face value the offer doesn't look so bad, but when you factor in the small things that the NHL is trying to sneak in, namely the players paying for owner made amnesty-buyouts, the hard cap of 60m which leads to 67m dumped as of next year, and then the overall value of the contracts being bought out - which could be in the vicinity of 100-120m over the length of their contracts. Add to this the new proposals under escrow making the players pay the full pension, Combine all this with the already established player issues of a 10 year CBA, a 6 year contract limit (up from 5 isn't a huge deal), as well 10% max variance (which may have been the biggest concession up from 5%), and the players don't exactly win any particular category.

I can't imagine the players would be eager to sign this particular offer, not with everything they've given up. The only real hope of a season in my opinion is for the owners to enable discussions on their current proposal, a 'take it or leave it' will simply drive the players away.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5463 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 03:03 PM

The new CBA better not end in 2021...2022 is an olympic hockey year and that is important to us fans not to have messed up by labour disputes. I would like to see the new CBA go through the season in which the 2022 olympic hockey will take place, or end a full season before it. so at the end of 21/22 at the earliest...

As a fan i hope that its a ten year deal.
  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5464 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

It would be unprecedented for a union to sign an agreement that inevitably leaves a number of it's members without a job. On top of that, the NHL doesn't even want to pay the contracts of these potential buyouts, so as a player would you agree to pay for players that have stopped trying?

I see a couple things that are wrong with your statement, or i don't understand them as well as i think I do.

First off: all the teams will still have a roster of 23 players..i don't think any team will simply cut back to 18 guys. If this happens it will be very very rare. In fact, lowering the cap is to ensure the viability of the worst off teams so that they will stay open and employ their 23 players for the foreseeable future, instead of folding and laying off 23 players each.

The owners still have to pay the buyouts..they are buying them out, they owe it. What they want is for the buyout to count against the cap in some capacity, lets say in full, as i think that is the offer....no player is paying the salary of the bought out player...the buyout will simply count against the cap so that going forward GM's must have to face consequences for their contracts and not sign them willy nilly for stupid amounts. If it counts against he cap when its signed...why wouldn't it count agains the cap when its bought out? In reality all that is happening during a buyout is the player is still paid..he just isn't lacing them up and skating in the team jersey, right? I am all for buyouts counting against the cap..yes this is painful in the very short term..but not one single future contract will be signed while the GM is thinking...i can always buy him out so who cares if its 1 million over paid for this plugs value.

through these basic assumptions in the preamble the rest of your post sort of crumbles, not that i am being argumentative..but its just not sound reasons, i don't think, to build a theory on that ultimately says the players can't sign this offer. There are some other good reasons though...if the 10 years cba length is a deal breaker...although why would it be? I would think the longer they can secure 50% of the HRR for the better as it is sure to grow year over year, and so will salaries.

Infact if i were a player i would love to see a cba not expire until it is unlikely I am still in the league.

Edited by Primal Optimist, 29 December 2012 - 03:16 PM.

  • 0

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5465 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,641 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 03:21 PM

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 !


Yep. These are the little things that the NHL tries to sneak in there to try and make it look like a better deal.

They never actually make concessions, at least not without taking money from the players in another area. The NHL is full of spin doctors, with Bettman being the biggest one of them all.

The NHLPA needs to force the NHL to give a real concession, which will likely be one more year on term limits, and maybe 15% variance.

Edited by DeNiro, 29 December 2012 - 03:22 PM.

  • 1

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5466 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68,317 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 03:38 PM

@michaelgrange
I am told #NHLPA #NHL calls are done for the day; likely to resume in person in NYC Sunday ... Counter offer may get pushed to Monday
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5467 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,380 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:08 PM

Yep. These are the little things that the NHL tries to sneak in there to try and make it look like a better deal.

They never actually make concessions, at least not without taking money from the players in another area. The NHL is full of spin doctors, with Bettman being the biggest one of them all.

The NHLPA needs to force the NHL to give a real concession, which will likely be one more year on term limits, and maybe 15% variance.

I have been called a lot names for not really taking a pro player stance this time around. Last time I was all for the players, but this time not so much. That being said, your right, i am sure there are spin doctors dancing a jig every morning trying to keep fans on board with teh NHL as much as possible. I don't think I am so much pro league and anti player as I am pro reality and anti no hockey.

So with all that in mind, I think the league should cave on max contract length, since if they get their way, buyouts will count against the cap so it doesn't matter anymore if its an 8 year deal or a 3 year deal, the GM is stuck with it either way. However the max variance is an issue the league cant afford to allow to be too wide.

There was a clarification earlier that i guess the 10% means year to year...like if year one is 10million year two can be 9, three is 8 four is 7 et cetera...10,9,8,7,6,5,4 is a seven year deal with maximum variance at 10%, or a cap hit of 7m whereas an 8th year at 3m would reduce that cap hit to 6.5...not really a big deal but a ninth year at 2m= 6m cap hit in year one with a real time pay of 10m ..i don't think the league would go for that. I see the league capping hard at 8 years for your own player and 7 for a FA or a guy you traded for in his final year. But even then, its a stretch as that just serves to allow teams some level of circumvention.
  • 1

1286820874m_THUMB.jpg
CDC GM League small.png General Manager

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5468 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:16 PM

@DarrenDreger: Some involved in info discussions will be via conf call, otherwise face to face. Could lead to bargaining on Sunday. No guarantee.


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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5469 juskay

juskay

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:22 PM

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 !



Wille is correct. Let me attempt some math. Assume each team buys out one player who has 20 million remaining on his contract. 30 teams times 20million each is 600 million dollars. Spread out that 600 million over ten years of the new CBA deal = 60 million per year that the players will lose from their 50/50 revenue split.

50% of revenues are 1.6 billion dollars (1600 million) - 60 million for the buy out's leave players with 1.54 billion (1540 million) for the first year of the new CBA. The players have to realize that if league revenue's grow by 6% per season their share will rise by 92.4 million in the first year alone. That means that the players share in year one was actually 1.54 billion + 92.4 million = 1.6324 billion (1632.4 million) players share actually increased. The players have to be willing to share the risk with the owners when it comes to league revenue's. Players and owners have to work together to grow revenues. Everyone wins.

I am not a good comunicator, maybe someone else can explain this better than me. But I would take the deal if I was a player. Buying out 1 player to get down to the cap only applies to a few teams, but it's a better option for the average player versus rolling back every players salary. It's a one time fix to get teams under the cap and get rid of some dead weight.

If players got realeased (bought out) under the old system players paid for it anyway? Because that money saved on the buy out could NOT be respent of new players? The buy out would cost against the teams salary cap?

Edited by juskay, 29 December 2012 - 04:36 PM.

  • 0

#5470 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:26 PM

The owners still have to pay the buyouts..they are buying them out, they owe it. What they want is for the buyout to count against the cap in some capacity, lets say in full, as i think that is the offer....no player is paying the salary of the bought out player...


That isn't true... if the money is taken out of the players' 50% of the revenue it is the players that pay for any buyouts, not the owners at all. The owners get to obtain every dollar back via escrow from every other player.

Imagine buying out Luongo's remaining contract at $40 million plus... that means EACH of the 720 NHLPA members get an additional $55k taken away from them in escrow to pay for it. That is on top of the cash they lose for dropping to 50% revenue.

Working off the last NHL proposal I see the following things as fair:
- The owners should pay the one contract buyout entirely separate from any cap/revenue split calculation
- The cap should immediately go down to $59 million (using the calculation I gave on the last page which guarantees the players on existing contracts 97% of their salary for the next 3 years)
- The players should give up the contract length back to 5yrs max or 7yrs on own team
- Players on NHL contracts in the minors should NOT count towards the cap BUT they should be considered on waivers continually until they are called back up by their own team (no recall waivers). This means that guys can't be buried in the minors because of cap considerations and every team has a chance at them at any point.
- Liberal rules around trading salary cap and/or dollars in trades so that any "unintended consequences" of deal can be mitigated through trades.

Edited by Provost, 29 December 2012 - 04:43 PM.

  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5471 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:49 PM

Wille is correct. Let me attempt some math. Assume each team buys out one player who has 20 million remaining on his contract. 30 teams times 20million each is 600 million dollars. Spread out that 600 million over ten years of the new CBA deal = 60 million per year that the players will lose from their 50/50 revenue split.


That averages around $850k taken away from each player on average via escrow... that is a huge number.

Realistically there would probably only be 15-20 guys bought out, but a couple of huge ones like Luongo and Lecavalier are $85 million just between the two of them (almost $120k for each of the 720 other players). Can you imagine how pissed off you would be as a plugger with a 4 year career giving up that cash for guys who get paid top dollars anyways AND who get to re-sign again for smaller contracts on another team.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5472 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,641 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 04:58 PM

All 30 teams buying out players with 20 million remaining on their contracts? That's never going to happen.

Most GM's are more responsible than that, and would likely only buy out a player if they really aren't performing and they can't get anything back in a trade. Owners don't want to pay players if they're not playing for their team. So this would be an absolute last resort for GM's.

Buy out's will be alot more rare than you think. It's horrible business for a team to do them and makes it less likely for other UFA's to sign with that team.

I think with 7 year contract limits, buyouts will be less frequent, and if they are made, it will be the last year or two of contracts, which will probably be low amounts in most contracts.

Edited by DeNiro, 29 December 2012 - 05:02 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5473 juskay

juskay

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:08 PM

That averages around $850k taken away from each player on average via escrow... that is a huge number.

Realistically there would probably only be 15-20 guys bought out, but a couple of huge ones like Luongo and Lecavalier are $85 million just between the two of them (almost $120k for each of the 720 other players). Can you imagine how pissed off you would be as a plugger with a 4 year career giving up that cash for guys who get paid top dollars anyways AND who get to re-sign again for smaller contracts on another team.


It's actually 85K not 850k......But if league revenues grow at 6% no player would lose anything? So your average player would lose 85k to escrow and get back this money if league revenues grow.......versus.......Your average player taking a 10% cut in pay to get the team down to the salary cap? And never recouping that 10% pay cut? I know which option I would choose.

Edited by juskay, 29 December 2012 - 05:19 PM.

  • 0

#5474 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:21 PM

It's actually 85K not 850k......But if league revenues grow at 6% no player would lose anything?


No... it is $600,000,000 divided by 720 = $850k per player. You are just making an assumption that you can spread it out over a 10 year deal to make it not sound as bad. At best they could spread it out over the remaining years of each contract bought out... but even then, the total amount doesn't change.

The growth argument has nothing to do with buyouts. Half of any growth belongs to the players under the 50/50 split to start moving back towards their current salary levels after a few years. What you are arguing is really that the players should be less than 50% as a double hit in order to pay for bad ownership decisions on signing players to bad contracts.

I say again... the owners would not pay a single cent towards this buyout clause under their proposal. The entire "make whole" provision is only $250 million (plus $50 million towards pensions)... you want to throw $600 million reduction from the player share into the argument?

A more reasonable buyout clause would be that each team has a one time compliance buyout where they only have to pay out 50% of the remaining salary (keep in mind the player still gets to play and sign somewhere else... if they can't earn the other 50% somewhere they don't deserve it). The 50% paid by the owner is not included in either the owner or player share of revenue. That stops other teams, players, GMs from having to pay for mistakes made by an owner who signs a bad deal. It is the cost of being dumb.

Edited by Provost, 29 December 2012 - 05:29 PM.

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

#5475 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:25 PM

Kind of how the players and owners are acting in this?

Do I expect the players to make concessions? Yes. Do I expect the owners to make concessions? Yes.
The company I work for didn't make the profit they forecast this year - because of that, none of the employees will receive a bonus.
In other words, the market is not constant so the employer can NOT guarantee how much they can share with their employees.

One thing that I dislike the most about this lockout is how the fans have divided - how fans from the same team are battling each other, how fans from the same team who choose one side and resort to name calling of each other.


The Owner's have made no concessions, the Players are the one's doing all the giving.

The whole entire purpose of these lockouts is for the Owner's to take more from the Players, then they cancel hockey to pressure them into doing so.

Any thought that the owner's have given anything is false.

That's just it though. You're contradicting yourself. Owners have made pretty much ZERO concessions. And this is after consecutive years of record profits for the league.

The thing I dislike the most about this lockout is how weak the average person is. How they are ready and willing to bend over backwards to whatever our corporate overlords tell us. How they value brands over people. How they have have so little solidarity with the players they would otherwise cheer for, when they are no longer entertaining them...

People say "it's different, these guys are overpaid/etc.", but it's not. It's just another case of the super-wealthy trying to pay by different rules than the rest of us. It's yet another example of billionaires attempting to maximize private profits, while socializing losses. And, like all large legal issues, what happens can set a precedent that can affect many other people/industries in the future.


+1

I'm glad someone knows whats going on.

If the players reject this new proposal, they are indeed GREEDY.


Not neccisarily, we don't know what lies in the proposal besides what we get at face value. Gotta study it first then when we hear what the Players respond with we can make a fair judgment.

Without the "billionaires" as you say - there would be no hockey.


I assume you mean no NHL.

But it's a circular argument, because without the Players there is no NHL either. So it goes both ways, the owners provide the structure to build and the players provide the supplies.

It's then up to the NHL and Gary to use the structure and the supplies to build the game. Which they were doing a good job of, but now they have thrown it all away going for the homerun to fix their previous mistakes.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 29 December 2012 - 05:26 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#5476 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:32 PM

Yep. These are the little things that the NHL tries to sneak in there to try and make it look like a better deal.

They never actually make concessions, at least not without taking money from the players in another area. The NHL is full of spin doctors, with Bettman being the biggest one of them all.

The NHLPA needs to force the NHL to give a real concession, which will likely be one more year on term limits, and maybe 15% variance.


The extra $50M the league is throwing into the revenue sharing is nothing to ignore. Basically the top 7 teams have to throw in another $7M to pizz poor teams that are losing money
  • 0

#5477 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,641 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:35 PM

The extra $50M the league is throwing into the revenue sharing is nothing to ignore. Basically the top 7 teams have to throw in another $7M to pizz poor teams that are losing money


Yea, and they're getting that money by reducing the players share to 50%.

The league is not giving up nearly as much as they'd like you to think.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5478 juskay

juskay

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:43 PM

No... it is $600,000,000 divided by 720 = $850k per player. You are just making an assumption that you can spread it out over a 10 year deal to make it not sound as bad. At best they could spread it out over the remaining years of each contract bought out... but even then, the total amount doesn't change.

The growth argument has nothing to do with buyouts. Half of any growth belongs to the players under the 50/50 split to start moving back towards their current salary levels after a few years. What you are arguing is really that the players should be less than 50% as a double hit in order to pay for bad ownership decisions on signing players to bad contracts.

I say again... the owners would not pay a single cent towards this buyout clause under their proposal. The entire "make whole" provision is only $250 million (plus $50 million towards pensions)... you want to throw $600 million reduction from the player share into the argument?

A more reasonable buyout clause would be that each team has a one time compliance buyout where they only have to pay out 50% of the remaining salary (keep in mind the player still gets to play and sign somewhere else... if they can't earn the other 50% somewhere they don't deserve it). The 50% paid by the owner is not included in either the owner or player share of revenue. That stops other teams, players, GMs from having to pay for mistakes made by an owner who signs a bad deal. It is the cost of being dumb.


600,000,000 divided by 10 years of the deal (as I posted) is 60,000,000 per year. Divided by 720 players is 85,000 not 850,000. And the part I am having trouble communicating is that the players pay for the big contracts that get bought out anyway, because they count against the cap going forward. This is a one time buy out and DOES NOT count against the cap going forward. So any increase in revenue goes towards the new cap.

Edited by juskay, 29 December 2012 - 05:47 PM.

  • 1

#5479 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

Yea, and they're getting that money by reducing the players share to 50%.

The league is not giving up nearly as much as they'd like you to think.


Yep... the only number that matters is the 50/50 split. The league in every proposal has made it clear that they don't want any money to be "outside the system".

They keep putting in these "concessions" which don't take a dollar out of their pockets.

They say things like "we will not have a rollback of current salaries"... by that they meant that they would pay the full amount, minus what goes into trust for escrow... then take all the escrow money back at the end of the year. The player still ended up with a reduction on what ends up in their pockets, and the owners only paid out 83% of the contract values.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5480 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:48 PM

600,000,000 divided by 10 years of the deal (as I posted) is 60,000,000 per year. Divided by 720 players is 85,000 not 850,000


I didn't say anything about spreading it over 10 years... and it was MY post you were saying was wrong.

That is just misdirection to try to average it over the course of a 10 year deal (which it definitely won't be by the way).
Why don't you just say how much per calendar day to make it sound even smaller? If someone is taking almost a million dollars from me... it is almost a million dollars no matter how you spin it.

My house wasn't listed at $25,000 because that is all I would pay in a year on the mortgage.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5481 juskay

juskay

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Joined: 23-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:52 PM

600,000,000 divided by 10 years of the deal (as I posted) is 60,000,000 per year. Divided by 720 players is 85,000 not 850,000. And the part I am having trouble communicating is that the players pay for the big contracts that get bought out anyway, because they count against the cap going forward. This is a one time buy out and DOES NOT count against the cap going forward. So any increase in revenue goes towards the new cap.


I am really not looking for an argument here, just playing with numbers, the 600 million was a fictional number. I am suggesting that it's better for the average plyer to have one player bought out to get down to the new cap, versus every player taking a pay cut.


  • 0

#5482 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,177 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:53 PM

Start the hunting party to find a pitchfork his rear end


That would be awesome hahaha
  • 0

#5483 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,806 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:54 PM

I see a couple things that are wrong with your statement, or i don't understand them as well as i think I do.

First off: all the teams will still have a roster of 23 players..i don't think any team will simply cut back to 18 guys. If this happens it will be very very rare. In fact, lowering the cap is to ensure the viability of the worst off teams so that they will stay open and employ their 23 players for the foreseeable future, instead of folding and laying off 23 players each.


It seems you didn't quite grasp my point. I made no mention of teams cutting back roster sizes, my point about those losing jobs would be the 67m that would be cut from the 16 teams that are currently over the 60m mark. There is of course the odd player that a team under the cap might take but generally those 14 teams or so are trying to keep costs down and wouldn't want to take on a cap dump.


The owners still have to pay the buyouts..they are buying them out, they owe it. What they want is for the buyout to count against the cap in some capacity, lets say in full, as i think that is the offer....no player is paying the salary of the bought out player...the buyout will simply count against the cap so that going forward GM's must have to face consequences for their contracts and not sign them willy nilly for stupid amounts. If it counts against he cap when its signed...why wouldn't it count agains the cap when its bought out? In reality all that is happening during a buyout is the player is still paid..he just isn't lacing them up and skating in the team jersey, right? I am all for buyouts counting against the cap..yes this is painful in the very short term..but not one single future contract will be signed while the GM is thinking...i can always buy him out so who cares if its 1 million over paid for this plugs value.

through these basic assumptions in the preamble the rest of your post sort of crumbles,


The owners are not covering the cost of the amnesty buyouts, I believe one poster wrote it was a 50% deal, but from the TSN rundown:

"Each Club will be entitled to execute up to one "Compliance Buy-Out" prior to the 2013/14 season pursuant to which payments made to the Player will not be charged against the team's Cap, but will be charged against the Players' Share."

It then seems like the rest of your 'preamble' (used incorrectly) fails. I suggest you read my post again, as I cited that the 100m+ lost in player salaries on top of currently employed players getting bought out would be a point that a unified union would otherwise have difficult with. I don't know why I respond when you're just going to go off on semantics without even understanding the latest proposal.

Read here: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412383
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5484 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:10 PM

The salaries are being rolledback, wouldn't the cap hits be rolledback aswell, how can they rollback salaries then drop the cap limit and not rollback cap hits aswell?

It seems like completing on 2 of 3 steps then calling it a done process.


As for candidates you have to consider what each player brings, and also that this is only a one time thing, there is only 1 Buyout over the entire duration of the CBA of you have to use it at the right time, these are pretty valuable.

Likely buyout candidates? These are my best guesses that would get the teams under a $60 mil cap with no other additions.


Ana - None/Under
Bos - None/Under
Buf - Leino
Cal - Bouwmeester
Car - None/Under
Chi - Frolik
Col - None/Under
Clb - None/Under
Dal - None/Under
Det - None/Under
Edm - Horcoff/Hemsky/Whitney
Fla - None/Under
LA - None/Under
Min - Heatley
Mtl - Gomez
Nas - None/Under
NJ - None/Under
NYI- None/Under
NYR - None/Under ( But still need to sign Del Zotto)
Ott - None/Under
Phi - Briere??? - If not counting Pronger the Flyers only need to shed approx $ 2mil but do not have full roster
Pho - None/Under
Pit - Martin
SJ - Havlat
Stl - None/Under
TB - Ohlund
Tor - Komisarek
Van - Ballard + ???
Was - Ward & ???
Win - None/Under



What a cursory look at the numbers shows that the Canucks are one of the few teams, along with Wash and Philly, that likely cannot get compliant with a single move but that the $60 mil cap seems highly doable for most teams.

The guys who will suffer the most are the RFAs who have not signed with their team yet. ie. Subban, Del Zotto.

Here is my likely candidates for each team, I wouldn't buy them out forsure (Most of them) But I think these are guys I would consider. Aswell I added some reaction to your picks.

( * = I would buy them out forsure)

Ana - Saku Koivu
Buf - Ville Leino
Cal - Matt Stajan
Mtl - Scott Gomez*
NYI - Rick Dipietro
NYR - Wade Redden*
Tor - Mike Komisarek
Was - Joel Ward or Tom Poti


- For Chi I wouldn't buy out Frolik, he is only 2.3 and isn't worth using the clause, plus he isn't a bad player
- For Edm I wouldn't buy out any player, Whitney is a good defensmen, Hemsky is a good forward, those two bring enough to the team and Horcoff is important to keep for his leadership, they still have a very young team and his leadership is key
- For Phi I wouldn't buy Briere, he is one of there best players and it doesn't do them any good to buy him out, they just loose a top player for nothing
- For Min I would consider buying out Heatley since they are in a tough spot but I doubt I would, he has the skill and ability to bring it, and it is kind of the same thing as Briere
- For PIT Wouldn't buy out Martin, now that they didn't get Parise or Suter that Michalek move looks like a failed Risk, Martin is important on there defense & it doesn't help them to buy him out
- For SJ I wouldn't buy out Havlat, he is a good player, pretty much same thing as Briere
- Wouldn't buy out Ballard, having depth on defense is a luxury and losing him for nothing doesn't make us better
- Ohlund is kind of a tough one cause they will lose his salary if he is injured, and when he isn't injured he is a good player for them so we will see what happens.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 29 December 2012 - 06:13 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#5485 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,227 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:20 PM

i think the league probably realizes just like with the make-whole, that they will have to pay for a portion of the amnesty buyouts. They did say there were things that could be "traded-off" or modified in this agreement.

i would assume this is one of the areas they would be willing to budge a bit more in order to secure the 10% variance and 6-7year contracts & 10 year CBA.
  • 0

#5486 surtur

surtur

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: 19-March 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:44 PM

That averages around $850k taken away from each player on average via escrow... that is a huge number.

Realistically there would probably only be 15-20 guys bought out, but a couple of huge ones like Luongo and Lecavalier are $85 million just between the two of them (almost $120k for each of the 720 other players). Can you imagine how pissed off you would be as a plugger with a 4 year career giving up that cash for guys who get paid top dollars anyways AND who get to re-sign again for smaller contracts on another team.

only fair way would be to structure it as a % of each players pay player 1 makes 600K he should only pay say 5% into the buyout contracts so he only pays 30K (still a lot since he is only taking home 300K approx after taxes)
player two making 8.7million pays same 5% so 435K ...

but i think it is absolutely mental that the owners want the players to pay for the managements miss use of there money.
  • 0
Release The KraKassian
Posted Image

#5487 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,156 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:48 PM

Record profits yet teams are in bankrupt states...that doesn't make sense.


Maybe the league just isn't in as good a shape as everyone would like to think.

The issue's are deeper than just getting 7% from the players, it won't fix the problems.
  • 1

zackass.png


#5488 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,460 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 29 December 2012 - 07:41 PM

Wille is correct. Let me attempt some math. Assume each team buys out one player who has 20 million remaining on his contract. 30 teams times 20million each is 600 million dollars. Spread out that 600 million over ten years of the new CBA deal = 60 million per year that the players will lose from their 50/50 revenue split.


As far as I know, amnesty buyouts would follow the same formula that are applied to buyouts now, they just wouldn't have the accompanying cap hit. So, contracts would not be paid out in full. Players under 26 years-old would receive only 1/3 of their remaining contract value. Players over 26 would receive 2/3 of their remaining contract value. The interesting question for me, though, is how the buyout will be applied to the players' share if it indeed is.

Currently, buyouts offer a lowered cap hit for teams by using the lowered payment (1/3 or 2/3 depending on age) spread over double the number of years bought out. What I would like to know is if the NHL is proposing they apply the amnesty buyouts against the players' share spread over double the number of years bought out per contract (meaning significant portions would be paid for by players who got no say in this CBA and making for some seriously complicated accounting), or are they proposing to make players pay for the buyouts entirely out of their already reduced revenue from a partial season, seriously diminishing what every player will get?

While it may not apply to the specifics of the cap hit/players' share hit, Cap Geek has a nifty Buyout Calculator that would at least let you get a better idea of how much any player would get.
http://www.capgeek.c...out-calculator/

The players have to be willing to share the risk with the owners when it comes to league revenue's. Players and owners have to work together to grow revenues. Everyone wins.


The problem is the idea that "owners take all of the risks" is a myth based on the misconception of what it means to own a business. Owners risk their initial investment in a company, nothing more. Companies are incorporated to legally separate the owners' property and moneys from that of the company, so even if a company goes bankrupt due to an owner's bad management the owner will never lose more than the money they willingly put into the company. (And, if they actually worked at the company they could have been being paid a huge salary while there, further limiting or even completely offsetting their loses.) That is considered the average risk of buying a business. However, a sports franchise isn't an average business and they actually face even fewer risks than owners of regular businesses.

NHL team owners buy into a business that is given every advantage to succeed, far beyond what other businesses get. They get a closed system with limited competition, territorial rights (meaning no other NHL team can move into their city and take their business..unlike the real world where anyone can put a store just like yours next door and drive you out of business), and massive amounts of control over their employees the likes of which are rarely seen outside of sports. They don't even have to do the work to generate all of their own revenue. They have the NHL to sell merchandise and secure TV deals from which they receive revenue.

Further more, all teams receive huge luxury tax breaks beyond what almost any other business receives and the NHL is (literally!) classified as a not-for-profit to allow them to keep millions they owe American taxpayers each year. On top of that, many teams (like Tampa Bay) operate in arenas built in part or wholly with taxpayers' money while the billionaire owners of the teams get to keep the lion's share of profits for themselves. Worse still, some teams actually get paid by taxpayers to operate the arena, even though the taxpayers get little if any return on their yearly investment! Do you know of another business that's true for? The auto industry, responsible for tens of thousands of jobs had to repay the loans they got, but NHL franchises are given millions of taxpayers' dollars every single year.

If that weren't enough, very few owners have ever lost money by owning a NHL franchise. Even owners of franchises that lose money year in and year out end up making a tidy profit when they sell the team because almost all teams are continuing to increase in value almost yearly. Tampa Bay, for example, was purchased in 2010 for $93M but, despite being notorious for losing money, is currently valued by Forbes at $174M. Even if you assume a major overestimation by Forbes, that still means the owners of a franchise known for losing money year in and year out could sell and make dozens of millions of dollars after only a few years.

Outside of sports, it's almost unheard of for a company to lose money year after year but still make the owner millions when they sell, but the NHL is full of examples of money losing teams making owners millions in value increase:
  • St. Louis was just purchased for $120M this year. It's already valued by Forbes (in November) as being worth $130M.
  • Carolina was purchased in 1994 for $48M but Forbes puts its current value at $162M.
  • Anaheim was purchased in 2005 for $70M but Forbes puts its current value at $192M.
  • Buffalo was purchased in 2011 for $165M but Forbes puts its current value at $175M.
  • New York Islanders was purchased in 2000 for $130M but Forbes puts its current value at $155M.
  • San Jose was purchased in 2002 for $147M but Forbes puts its current value at $223M.
  • Washington was purchased in 1999 for $85M but Forbes puts its current value at $250M.
In fact, in the NHL it's far more common for money losing teams to make owners nice profits after only a few years than it is for a team to drop in value. Looking only at teams losing money (because obviously those not losing money are generating yearly profits for the owners, allowing them to recoup their initial investment and then make profit after that), there are only 5 teams that have dropped in value: Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, Minnesota, and Nashville. (NOTE: I only included Columbus because Forbes lists a 2012 purchase price of $173M, but I don't believe that's accurate. The team, currently valued at $145M, was purchased in 1997 for $80M. Earlier this year the company Nationwide purchased 30% of the team for $52M, which should make the total purchase price $132M. I think the Forbes 2012 purchase price might also include the $42.5M taxpayers paid for the arena in order to allow Columbus to lease it for FREE, saving the team $9.5M a year in rent.) (Source)

I'm sure no one is surprised to see Phoenix on the list of teams that have dropped in value since being purchased last, but what may be surprising is that Forbes still values the team at $134M, which is barely below the $140M the NHL paid for it in 2009. (Taxpayers have paid the NHL $25M a year to operate the arena since they purchased the team.) Even more surprising is the news that the NHL was asking $170M. The guy most likely going to buy the team, Greg Jamison, only wanted to pay $150. (Source) So, even at the lower price, this sinkhole of a team often held up as an example of all that is wrong with the NHL business mode is still going to sell for more than Forbes values it at and make the NHL a handsome $10M profit.That's NHL owner style "risk" in a nutshell
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5489 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,630 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:15 PM

Lp
  • 0

#5490 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:21 PM

Yea, and they're getting that money by reducing the players share to 50%.

The league is not giving up nearly as much as they'd like you to think.


The league hasn't given up anything really. That increased revenue share shouldn't even be the players responsibility. In fact, I hate the fact that it is a fixed number rather than percent of HRR. Practically guarantees another lockout in the future.
  • 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.