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

#5521 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:03 PM

... Everyones salary gets rolled back 15% which out of your 60 million brings it to 51 million. Next year malhotra, and raymond will be gone thats another 4.5 million.


That is effectively what is going to have to happen but that is not what the proposals say now. It could be simply that they leave the cap higher and take the cash back in escrow based on the 50/50 split.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5522 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:12 PM

I havnt read the latest proposal, but im pretty sure it is still including that "make whole" plan which is what pays for the rollback in salary, the money comes out of the owners 50%
  • 0

Posted Image


#5523 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,396 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:13 PM

That is very likely what is going to happen, the NHL will lie to ignorant fans and swear there's no rollback in salaries even when owners know they'll be paying less than promised for years thanks to their lowered cap and escrow even as they claim to have made players "whole."
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#5524 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 30 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

I havnt read the latest proposal, but im pretty sure it is still including that "make whole" plan which is what pays for the rollback in salary, the money comes out of the owners 50%


It may seem like semantics (because it is... just spin on the part of the NHL). There is no "rollback" in any proposal from either side and hasn't been for months.

That means that each Sedin keeps their salary at $6.1 million, that is unlike last CBA when each player rolled back their actual contracts 24%.

So Sedin gets his full cheques, but a big chunk gets held back in escrow. It is just a way to have some money kept in trust because they really just estimate what the salary cap should be and at the end of the year have to calculate what was exactly owed to the players based on their 57%. The calculation was pretty close each year, some years the players even got more money than what they put in escrow.

Under a new CBA with no "rollback"... the players won't get any money back in escrow. There are estimates that say it might be well over 25% for the next couple of years. the "Make Whole" money is then applied to make up some of that loss.

The whole argument about whether to keep the cap at $60 or $67 million next season doesn't really matter as it doesn't add any dollars to the players.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5525 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:18 AM

It may seem like semantics (because it is... just spin on the part of the NHL). There is no "rollback" in any proposal from either side and hasn't been for months.

That means that each Sedin keeps their salary at $6.1 million, that is unlike last CBA when each player rolled back their actual contracts 24%.

So Sedin gets his full cheques, but a big chunk gets held back in escrow. It is just a way to have some money kept in trust because they really just estimate what the salary cap should be and at the end of the year have to calculate what was exactly owed to the players based on their 57%. The calculation was pretty close each year, some years the players even got more money than what they put in escrow.

Under a new CBA with no "rollback"... the players won't get any money back in escrow. There are estimates that say it might be well over 25% for the next couple of years. the "Make Whole" money is then applied to make up some of that loss.

The whole argument about whether to keep the cap at $60 or $67 million next season doesn't really matter as it doesn't add any dollars to the players.


While I applaud your effort, I don't think you are understanding the agreement properly. In order for the players share of 57% to drop to 50% there is an innate rollback that has and always will be part of this agreement. The entire point of "make whole" is to pay the players the money they are going to lose via this rollback. The money comes from the owners 50% of the share, and includes an escrow of 3% should the revenues not land in their projected range.
  • 0

Posted Image


#5526 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,957 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:21 AM

... Everyones salary gets rolled back 15% which out of your 60 million brings it to 51 million. Next year malhotra, and raymond will be gone thats another 4.5 million.


If you read again, I have 13 players at 50.8m - that doesn't include Malholtra and Raymond, neither of these players are extended into 2013/14. Everything I've read says the NHL has stated no salary rollbacks, if you have an article stating otherwise please post it. If not then refer to the highlights of the latest proposal I posted earlier in this thread
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5527 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,957 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:25 AM

While I applaud your effort, I don't think you are understanding the agreement properly. In order for the players share of 57% to drop to 50% there is an innate rollback that has and always will be part of this agreement. The entire point of "make whole" is to pay the players the money they are going to lose via this rollback. The money comes from the owners 50% of the share, and includes an escrow of 3% should the revenues not land in their projected range.


Once again you're off, and provost was right in calling it semantics. See highlights here: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412383

There is no salary roll back, teams will have to be in compliance with the cap for 2013/14, which means amnesty buyouts and players being waived. Ultimately paid veterans lose their NHL jobs to cheap rookies (a point which has been illustrated by a number of posters including myself).
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5528 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,306 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:34 AM

While I applaud your effort, I don't think you are understanding the agreement properly. In order for the players share of 57% to drop to 50% there is an innate rollback that has and always will be part of this agreement. The entire point of "make whole" is to pay the players the money they are going to lose via this rollback. The money comes from the owners 50% of the share, and includes an escrow of 3% should the revenues not land in their projected range.


That's how I thought it worked.

So wouldn't the players cap hits be lowered then?

The make whole thing is simply to help transition players during the rollback, isn't it?
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#5529 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 01:35 AM

Once again you're off, and provost was right in calling it semantics. See highlights here: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412383

There is no salary roll back, teams will have to be in compliance with the cap for 2013/14, which means amnesty buyouts and players being waived. Ultimately paid veterans lose their NHL jobs to cheap rookies (a point which has been illustrated by a number of posters including myself).


These are #2 and #3 bullet points in the new agreement.. Im not sure why you choose to ignore them.


• $300 million in “Make-Whole” payments (outside the system) to compensate Players
for the reduced value of Player contracts in the early years of the new CBA.

• No contractual “roll backs” of Player Salaries.



300 million in make whole payments for the reduced value of player contracts - This indicates a rollback

No contractual "rollbacks" of player SALARIES - This means that the players SALARY will not get rolled back, but his contract will still have decreased value..

As I said its pretty plain sight to see, i'm not sure why you people are even arguing it especially due to how damn well absurd the proposition would be.

Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.

Edited by G-52, 31 December 2012 - 01:42 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5530 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,957 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:13 AM

These are #2 and #3 bullet points in the new agreement.. Im not sure why you choose to ignore them.


• $300 million in “Make-Whole” payments (outside the system) to compensate Players
for the reduced value of Player contracts in the early years of the new CBA.

• No contractual “roll backs” of Player Salaries.



300 million in make whole payments for the reduced value of player contracts - This indicates a rollback

No contractual "rollbacks" of player SALARIES - This means that the players SALARY will not get rolled back, but his contract will still have decreased value..

As I said its pretty plain sight to see, i'm not sure why you people are even arguing it especially due to how damn well absurd the proposition would be.

Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.


The condescension is unnecessary. I think any and everyone is qualified to post in this thread. I didn't take the law path following my undergrad, so you win that pissing contest. I am currently working on a masters at SFU.

It seems I fell for the cap hit vs salary fallacy. My points early were concerned with the amnesty buyout (point 6), of which the buyouts would be covered by the players share. The amnesty buyout exists only to enable teams to be in compliance with the salary cap. It was an earlier article which examined the Canucks current salary woes with the 2013/14 season which led me down that path of thinking.

So if I'm getting this straight, the players still receive full value of their salaries (as stipulated by the highlights section), but the extent of their contracts being damaged is covered by the 300mil. In terms of cap hits, your assumption is all of the players' cap hits would be decreased by 15% in order to allow for compliance?

Edited by Ossi Vaananen, 31 December 2012 - 02:13 AM.

  • 2

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#5531 GLASSJAW

GLASSJAW

    LEGENDARY POSER

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,302 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:44 AM

Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.


haha, look at this guy
  • 4

output_Pdq_B7_F.gif
 
i'm not alone; i'll never be
 


#5532 vv2

vv2

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,401 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 08

Posted 31 December 2012 - 02:57 AM

lp
  • 0
Posted Image
Credit to -Vintage Canuck-

#5533 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:35 AM

Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.


G-52 you do not need to be a lawyer to interpret a contract. Actually well written contracts should be clear, written in plain english, easily legible and interpreted. Where an agreement that is unclear and subject to open interpretation, it could pose problems later on. You want an airtight agreement that is clearly understandable and does not allow for any open interpretation, otherwise, that's when lawsuits come in and will need to be reviewed and interpreted by a judge, unless, you throw in an arbitration clause which I highly recommend. Its quicker and a lot less messier and expensive. Logistically would you as a client want an agreement that would require the services of a lawyer to interpret every time you want to exercise any clauses in it, and if it's that poorly written the author is likely the only person who will be able to interpret/explain it.

The NHL is sure paying it's lawyers handsomely drafting up a 300 page agreement. It's a waste of money in my opinion. You should try to do as much in-house as possible. I would think if the NHL would properly negotiate with the NHLPA, together they would be able to resolve this without needing a team of lawyers. Besides, why reinvent the wheel, and I would have thought that overly lengthy agreements, vaguely convoluted written ones at that, was the days of old when lawyers were paid by the word. With that many pages, words, sentences you'd think it should cover all it's basis in terms of clearly defining and explaining the clauses therein.

Edited by Mauii, 31 December 2012 - 11:20 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#5534 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 03:42 AM

*
POPULAR

These are #2 and #3 bullet points in the new agreement.. Im not sure why you choose to ignore them.


• $300 million in “Make-Whole” payments (outside the system) to compensate Players
for the reduced value of Player contracts in the early years of the new CBA.

• No contractual “roll backs” of Player Salaries.

300 million in make whole payments for the reduced value of player contracts - This indicates a rollback

Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.


I have fairly extensive experience in labour relations and have been at the negotiating table for several very large contracts (on the management side). A very large part of my work has been interpreting CBA language and presenting in front of arbitrators.

You are clearly not reading and/or comprehending the posts that have been made by me and others. I even made examples.

Rollback = a reduction in the pure number value of the contract. It has a specific meaning and mechanism that you are not following. You think that any dollar less in a player's pocket is a "rollback", that is simply not true. If you had passed the bar, you would understand that different language means different things. You are arguing with folks based on you wanting to use the term "rollback" as something general and vague when in fact it is a very specific term which means a certain thing.

A "rollback" is what happened LAST CBA (24% I believe) and according to BOTH parties is NOT what is happening this time. The owners aren't asking for it and the players are not offering it. The mechanism is escrow that will ensure the reduced player share. The "make whole" is not making up for a "rollback" but is instead meant to offset some of the reduction that will be felt by losing money in escrow.

The Sedin's contract is still for $6.1 million per year. It is not being dropped to $5.3 million per year as a rollback (which would apply to each of the remaining years of the current contract). A rollback would mean that even if league revenues tripled next year, the Sedin's would not get more than $5.3 million in salary... just that the total team salary cap would go up.

Using escrow mechanisms (different from rollback), if league revenues tripled next year... the Sedin's would make their original $6.1 in salary.

VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

The owners will write cheques for the full bi-weekly amount of the pay owed to each player. A deduction off of each those cheques (just like CPP or EI) will be made and put into a 3rd party trust in "escrow". At the end of the year the league and PA will calculate the total HRR revenue and the total player salary paid. If it turns out that the player salaries have exceeded the 50% mandated (as will be 100% certain to account for the sudden drop to 50% from 57%), the owners get cheques from the 3rd party escrow account for that amount.,, any remaining goes back to the individual players.

An interesting note is that escrow owed to the owners gets split up evenly between all 30 teams, and not by percentage of their payroll. Phoenix gets the same back as Vancouver even though the Vancouver players put more into the account. This is a backdoor way to do revenue sharing (funded by the players of course).

The "make whole" money isn't making up for a rollback, it is making it so that not as much has to go into escrow from each cheque. To drop to 50% revenue and maintain a $70 million cap means that players would probably have to put 25-30% of their paycheques into escrow and likely get little of it back. It may be that full amount goes into escrow anyways, but each player gets a portion of the "make whole" separately in order to take a little of the sting away from it.

A couple pages back I put in what I thought would be the simplest and most agreeable method for reducing the player share without causing too much pain. It involved dropping the cap immediately to the $59 million but lowering the cap hit on existing contracts by the same proportion. The "make whole" funds as already promised are enough to top up those salaries to about 97% of their full value for the next 3 years (assuming the same revenue levels as last year).

Edited by Provost, 31 December 2012 - 10:36 AM.

  • 6
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5535 grandmaster

grandmaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 06:19 AM

I have fairly extensive experience in labour relations and have been at the negotiating table for several very large contracts (on the management side). A very large part of my work has been interpreting CBA language and presenting in front of arbitrators.

You are clearly not reading and/or comprehending the posts that have been made by me and others. I even made examples.

Rollback = a reduction in the pure number value of the contract. It has a specific meaning and mechanism that you are not following. You think that any dollar less in a player's pocket is a "rollback", that is simply not true. If you had passed the bar, you would understand that different language means different things. You are arguing with folks based on you wanting to use the term "rollback" as something general and vague when in fact it is a very specific term which means a certain thing.

A "rollback" is what happened LAST CBA (24% I believe) and according to BOTH parties is NOT what is happening this time. The owners aren't asking for it and the players are not offering it. The mechanism is escrow that will ensure the reduced player share. The "make whole" is not making up for a "rollback" but is instead meant to offset some of the reduction that will be felt by losing money in escrow.

The Sedin's contract is still for $6.1 million per year. It is not being dropped to $5.3 million per year as a rollback (which would apply to each of the remaining years of the current contract). A rollback would mean that even if league revenues tripled next year, the Sedin's would not get more than $5.3 million in salary... just that the total team salary cap would go up.

Using escrow mechanisms (different from rollback), if league revenues tripled next year... the Sedin's would make their original $6.1 in salary.

VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!

The owners will write cheques for the full bi-weekly amount of the pay owed to each player. A deduction off of each those cheques (just like CPP or EI) will be made and put into a 3rd party trust in "escrow". At the end of the year the league and PA will calculate the total HRR revenue and the total player salary paid. If it turns out that the player salaries have exceeded the 50% mandated (is will be 100% certain to account for the sudden drop to 50% from 57%), the owners get cheques from the 3rd party escrow account for that amount.,, any remaining goes back to the individual players.

An interesting note is that escrow owed to the owners gets split up evenly between all 30 teams, and not by percentage of their payroll. Phoenix gets the same back as Vancouver even though the Vancouver players put more into the account. This is a backdoor way to do revenue sharing (funded by the players of course).

The "make whole" money isn't making up for a rollback, it is making it so that not as much has to go into escrow from each cheque. To drop to 50% revenue and maintain a $70 million cap means that players would probably have to put 25-30% of their paycheques into escrow and likely get little of it back. It may be that full amount goes into escrow anyways, but each player gets a portion of the "make whole" separately in order to take a little of the sting away from it.

A couple pages back I put in what I thought would be the simplest and most agreeable method for reducing the player share without causing too much pain. It involved dropping the cap immediately to the $59 million but lowering the cap hit on existing contracts by the same proportion. The "make whole" funds as already promised are enough to top up those salaries to about 97% of their full value for the next 3 years (assuming the same revenue levels as last year).


Thanks for explaining it so well.
  • 0

Favorite all time Canuck: Bertuzzi 2002-2003 season
Most clutch all time Canuck: Linden 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Most exciting all time Canuck: Pavel Bure 90's

#5536 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,365 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 31 December 2012 - 09:51 AM

I am definitely pro-player and pro-PA in this dispute. However, I gotta say:

Why shouldn't a buyout be charged to players' shares?

It is money going to players, based on what the teams are contractually obliged to pay them. Just because players have not lived up to the terms of the deal, to the point where the team would rather pay them to NOT play, doesn't mean that it should somehow not count as players' share of HRR.

From a philosophical standpoint, I think there should also be a stigma within the PA against sucking. If Scott Gomez signs a huge deal, and then proceeds to suck, and gets bought out, other players who had a reduced pie to get a share of should be mad at him. But if he signs it, plays fantastic, and earns every penny, fellow players will respect him for it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#5537 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:03 AM

The condescension is unnecessary. I think any and everyone is qualified to post in this thread. I didn't take the law path following my undergrad, so you win that pissing contest. I am currently working on a masters at SFU.

It seems I fell for the cap hit vs salary fallacy. My points early were concerned with the amnesty buyout (point 6), of which the buyouts would be covered by the players share. The amnesty buyout exists only to enable teams to be in compliance with the salary cap. It was an earlier article which examined the Canucks current salary woes with the 2013/14 season which led me down that path of thinking.

So if I'm getting this straight, the players still receive full value of their salaries (as stipulated by the highlights section), but the extent of their contracts being damaged is covered by the 300mil. In terms of cap hits, your assumption is all of the players' cap hits would be decreased by 15% in order to allow for compliance?


Correct.



MAUII- I stopped reading here: Actually well written contracts should be clear, written in plain english, easily legible and interpreted.

PROVOST - Ill admit you are correct one one point, I did not read your previous posts. Im short on time and they are all very long. I read the jist of your last post and from the quick read through it sounded like we were talking about the same thing. I realize a rollback is in their contracts not their salary. The make whole provision is to compensate for the rollback in player contracts once the share goes from 57% to 50% which is a 14% rollback in contracts.

As stated im short on time as per usual, I gotta go.
  • 0

Posted Image


#5538 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

PROVOST - Ill admit you are correct one one point, I did not read your previous posts. Im short on time and they are all very long. I read the jist of your last post and from the quick read through it sounded like we were talking about the same thing. I realize a rollback is in their contracts not their salary. The make whole provision is to compensate for the rollback in player contracts once the share goes from 57% to 50% which is a 14% rollback in contracts.

As stated im short on time as per usual, I gotta go.


Wrong again... a rollback is not in their contracts. There is no 14% rollback in contracts. You continue to be wrong and we are not talking about the same thing at all.

1. A good general rule is not to start arguments when you don't bother reading what you decide to argue about.

2. It is even a better idea not to be condescending to other people when you don't know what you don't know what you are talking about and they do.

3. You are still wrong in using the term rollback to try to make it seem like you are not wrong. It is the wrong term, it means something different than you want it to. You originally argued that we would have plenty of cap space next year because each player's contract would count for less. That is not true in the current proposal. We would have to fill the roster while counting the full amount of existing contracts under a new $60 million ceiling. It will never happen as the players won't go for it... but that is what is proposed.

4. Claiming to by "too busy" to end an argument you had plenty of time to start (and as a way to get away from continuing to dig yourself deeper) is lame.

Edited by Provost, 31 December 2012 - 11:32 AM.

  • 3
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5539 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:28 AM

1. A good general rule is not to start arguments when you don't bother reading what you decide to argue about.

2. It is even a better idea not to be condescending to other people when you don't know what you don't know what you are talking about.

3. You are still wrong in using the term rollback to try to make it seem like you are not wrong. It is the wrong term, it means something different than you want it to.

4. Claiming to by "too busy" to end an argument you had plenty of time to start is lame.


I wasnt even arguing with you for starters.

Secondly I just took my car to the mechanics

Thirdly I don't care if i'm condescending because i'm right.

And fourthly :


roll·back

/ˈrōlˌbak/


Noun

A reduction or decrease. [color=#878787 !important]
Verb
Restore (a database) to a previously defined state.

Edited by G-52, 31 December 2012 - 11:28 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5540 Primal Optimist

Primal Optimist

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,804 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:32 AM

The owners will write cheques for the full bi-weekly amount of the pay owed to each player. A deduction off of each those cheques (just like CPP or EI) will be made and put into a 3rd party trust in "escrow". At the end of the year the league and PA will calculate the total HRR revenue and the total player salary paid. If it turns out that the player salaries have exceeded the 50% mandated (as will be 100% certain to account for the sudden drop to 50% from 57%), the owners get cheques from the 3rd party escrow account for that amount.,, any remaining goes back to the individual players.

The "make whole" money isn't making up for a rollback, it is making it so that not as much has to go into escrow from each cheque. To drop to 50% revenue and maintain a $70 million cap means that players would probably have to put 25-30% of their paycheques into escrow and likely get little of it back. It may be that full amount goes into escrow anyways, but each player gets a portion of the "make whole" separately in order to take a little of the sting away from it.

A couple pages back I put in what I thought would be the simplest and most agreeable method for reducing the player share without causing too much pain. It involved dropping the cap immediately to the $59 million but lowering the cap hit on existing contracts by the same proportion. The "make whole" funds as already promised are enough to top up those salaries to about 97% of their full value for the next 3 years (assuming the same revenue levels as last year).

Just using rough math, I think the league HRR was3.3billion last year..so 57% of that was 1.8billion, the players salaries as it were. Now using that 3.3billion number, but dropping to 50% is 1.65billion...so the drop in salary is roughly the amount on the table in 'make whole' money..thus the 'making it whole". This half seasons cap can stay the same, becuase the owners are tossing in the escrow, basically. Or at least what would ahve been the escrow at last years revenue numbers. There is bound to be a hit on that from the lockout and so players will still lose a little in the escrow process. At least that is how i see it.
  • 0

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

Happy Hockey Fan!!!


#5541 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

MAUII- I stopped reading here: Actually well written contracts should be clear, written in plain english, easily legible and interpreted.


G-52 if youre a practicing lawyer and have been in the field long enough, you would know this. Unless, you're a junior then the attitude makes sense. I've worked with enough junior lawyers and they're usually the least knowledgeable of the pack and some more ego then brains. The smartest ones know that they don't know everything. It is only through experience will you understand the inner workings of your field. I prefer working with senior lawyers who are seasoned and egoless with a wealth of wisdom.

Edited by Mauii, 31 December 2012 - 11:45 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#5542 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:41 AM

G-52 if youre a practicing lawyer and have been in the field long enough, you would know this. Unless, you're a junior then the attitude makes sense. I've worked with enough junior lawyers and they're usually the least knowledgeable of the pack and some more ego then brains. The smartest ones know that they don't know everything. I prefer working with senior lawyers who are seasoned and have the wisdom to be egoless.


I'm not, nor have I ever said I was a lawyer, I simply passed the BAR and then changed professions. I do know enough though to say that contracts are very rarely EASY to read or understand. In-fact they are usually designed that way..

Edited by G-52, 31 December 2012 - 11:42 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#5543 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:42 AM

roll·back

/ˈrōlˌbak/

Noun

A reduction or decrease. [color=#878787 !important]
Verb
Restore (a database) to a previously defined state.


A term in labour law is not the same as a term in general usage. It is defined differently. In labour law you make things mean something very specific based on precedent and agreed usage. Anyone should know this after a first year contract law class. You do this so that everyone knows exactly what each word means and how it functions. A "Strike" doesn't mean to hit something for example even though that is what it says in the dictionary.


A rollback doesn't mean escrow.

Edited by Provost, 31 December 2012 - 11:47 AM.

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

#5544 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:57 AM

I'm not, nor have I ever said I was a lawyer, I simply passed the BAR and then changed professions. I do know enough though to say that contracts are very rarely EASY to read or understand. In-fact they are usually designed that way..


Then your perception makes sense. I'll just say, if you do not understand the agreement, then it's poorly written. They are not all equal. It's like interpreting the law, it should be understandable to its target market, if its not clear then it's poorly written. I am not the law maker but as someone in the public domain who has to read it, interpret and utilize it, it should be clear to me or anyone, if its not clear then that's a problem. I've called into the regulator to interpret a particular rule once because it was unclear, and as it would turn out the lawyer was working on it just then to reword and make it clearer.
  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#5545 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

Just using rough math, I think the league HRR was3.3billion last year..so 57% of that was 1.8billion, the players salaries as it were. Now using that 3.3billion number, but dropping to 50% is 1.65billion...so the drop in salary is roughly the amount on the table in 'make whole' money..thus the 'making it whole". This half seasons cap can stay the same, becuase the owners are tossing in the escrow, basically. Or at least what would ahve been the escrow at last years revenue numbers. There is bound to be a hit on that from the lockout and so players will still lose a little in the escrow process. At least that is how i see it.


You are right... I spent a little time crunching the numbers (roughly) 2 or 3 pages back in this thread.

Making the assumption of revenue staying at the same level as last year for the next three years (maybe drop this year and next and increase in the 3rd... but averaging the same)... the "make whole" covers about 97% of the difference in the total salary liability for existing contracts for three years. Not too shabby really. There is a real risk that the revenue will drop significantly over that period though.

One could hope that revenue growth will start to cover the rest of any years of existing contracts beyond year three.

One thing I have never found is whether relocation/expansion fees are considered as part of HRR. Getting $50-200 million in relocation fees from moving Phoenix and/or another team could put huge dollars into the pot to reduce escrow. If it is included in HRR that could be why the league has been fighting so hard for the 50/50 split... they may expect a few team movement over the course of the next contract and want to keep it out of the players' hands.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5546 George_Costanza

George_Costanza

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Joined: 03-March 04

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:13 PM

4m Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
Told the NHL is still waiting for the PA to arrive at league headquarters. Meanwhile, this just in...Times Square is mayhem!


1h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
CBA mtng now likely closer to 2pm...



2h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
Will PA proposal contain "tweaks" and "trades" or will it be an item by item breakdown contrary to NHL request? Probably a bit of both.


2h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
CBA mtng expected to begin between 1pm - 1:30pm. Players will present counter to NHL.


  • 0
Posted Image

#5547 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,143 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:16 PM

4m Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
Told the NHL is still waiting for the PA to arrive at league headquarters. Meanwhile, this just in...Times Square is mayhem!


1h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
CBA mtng now likely closer to 2pm...



2h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
Will PA proposal contain "tweaks" and "trades" or will it be an item by item breakdown contrary to NHL request? Probably a bit of both.


2h Darren Dreger@DarrenDreger
CBA mtng expected to begin between 1pm - 1:30pm. Players will present counter to NHL.


@RenLavoieRDS
Don Fehr and and players just arrived at the NHL office in New York.

@NHLPA
Players attending CBA meetings today in NYC: Chris Campoli, Jamal Mayers, Rick DiPietro, Ron Hainsey, Martin St. Louis
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5548 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,143 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:24 PM

@RealKyper
Stupidest move in negotiation history! Scheduling meeting in NYC on New Years eve. Scene outside #NHL office 6th ave

Posted Image
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#5549 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,946 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:35 PM

@RealKyper
Stupidest move in negotiation history! Scheduling meeting in NYC on New Years eve. Scene outside #NHL office 6th ave


They are clearly relying on Ryan Seacrest and the ghost of Dick Clark to solve this thing.

It is a dumb move... I never thought of it. I have been to NYC and the NHL office is only a couple blocks from Times Square right in midtown Manhattan. Yeesh... spring for a conference room in Brooklyn or something.
  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#5550 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 75,143 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:37 PM

They are clearly relying on Ryan Seacrest and the ghost of Dick Clark to solve this thing.

It is a dumb move... I never thought of it. I have been to NYC and the NHL office is only a couple blocks from Times Square right in midtown Manhattan. Yeesh... spring for a conference room in Brooklyn or something.


Lol, and here's a video:


  • 0

307mg00.jpg





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.