Linkage at 55% offered by Owners ..What does it mean ??

Status
Not open for further replies.

oil slick

Registered User
Feb 6, 2004
7,593
0
The Messenger said:
One more time ... Owners want linkage .. They offered 42.5 mil no linkage to try and get a new CBA .. .The 42.5 mil means nothing its only a number designed to stop a few teams from overspending ..

How does the League guarantee the 42.5 mil in actual dollars spent per team??

It stop Detroit from overspending .. How does it prevent Pittsburgh and Atlanta and Nashville and Florida from UNDERSPENDING ?? ...

You are getting confused. The owners offered linkage. They had items in there proposal that said things like this:

"If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 54 percent of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues, the Clubs would be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive their full 54% Share."

The PA didn't want linkage, and for whatever reason, they prefered a hard cap, which you're right, doesn't guarantee anything.

Now, the NHL is putting linkage back on the table, and presumably (we've seen nothing to contradict this), they will include things like

"If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 55 percent of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues, the Clubs would be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive their full 55% Share."
 

Pepper

Registered User
Aug 30, 2004
14,693
269
Russian Fan said:
That's where you're wrong. YES linkage is an issue but the owners just doesn't want that. They want the QO at 75%, they want the UFA age at the same age or 1 years younger (30) . They want to include minor salaries to the linkage. They want the rookie contract going from 3 to 4. They want no more incentive to a rookie.

That's why BOTH SIDES said they were NOT CLOSE AT ALL than most of the FANS & MEDIAS seems a few weeks ago.

Of course they include minor salaries since they pay those salaries!!

You're probably going to give me a link to an article/story which proves your claim that they want linkage AND 75% QOs and rookie contracts to 4 years?
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Russian Fan said:
That's where you're wrong. YES linkage is an issue but the owners just doesn't want that. They want the QO at 75%, they want the UFA age at the same age or 1 years younger (30) . They want to include minor salaries to the linkage. They want the rookie contract going from 3 to 4. They want no more incentive to a rookie.

That's why BOTH SIDES said they were NOT CLOSE AT ALL than most of the FANS & MEDIAS seems a few weeks ago.

But you honestly can't tell me if the players agreed to linkage, they would not get a bunch of other things in their favor. I am sorry, but when you cry non-starter non of us know what happens past the initial presentation.
 

preddevil

Registered User
Mar 9, 2004
197
0
The Messenger said:
One more time ... Owners want linkage .. They offered 42.5 mil no linkage to try and get a new CBA .. .The 42.5 mil means nothing its only a number designed to stop a few teams from overspending ..

How does the League guarantee the 42.5 mil in actual dollars spent per team??

It stop Detroit from overspending .. How does it prevent Pittsburgh and Atlanta and Nashville and Florida from UNDERSPENDING ?? ...

It doesn't. Based on the proposals thus far, if the PA wants a salary floor, they have to accept linkage. If they don't want linkage, they have to give up a salary floor.
 

Munchausen

Guest
The Messenger said:
It stops Detroit from overspending .. How does it prevent Pittsburgh and Atlanta and Nashville and Florida from UNDERSPENDING ?? ...

It doesn't. Why? Because the owners have no way of readjusting this cap number in the event revenues diminish significantly. They cannot put an arbitrary floor that they might not be able to afford if the revenues go from 2M to 1M. That's why there's no floor. If the players had accepted linkage, they would have had their guarenteed 55% and each team would have had to play under a floored system. I've always said it, the best deal the players got was the one with linkage. They don't want it? Fine, then they completely forfeit their right to have any kind of guarentees on the % of revenues they will get from the owners.
 

Phanuthier*

Guest
The Messenger said:
What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed .. I thought the NHL offered 55%... We seem to be a little short here ..

The key to the THREAD is How do you guarantee the players 55% of league revenue??
I think the Messenger better go home and do some homework.

Best way to guerentee 55%? How about accepting the 55% offer?
 

Bauer83

Registered User
Aug 27, 2004
577
0
Splatman Phanutier said:
I think the Messenger better go home and do some homework.

Best way to guerentee 55%? How about accepting the 55% offer?

I think he is probably putting a call into Goodenow asking how again he is supposed to explain why the players are getting the shaft with linkage.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Russian Fan said:
That's where you're wrong. YES linkage is an issue but the owners just doesn't want that. They want the QO at 75%, they want the UFA age at the same age or 1 years younger (30) . They want to include minor salaries to the linkage. They want the rookie contract going from 3 to 4. They want no more incentive to a rookie.

That's why BOTH SIDES said they were NOT CLOSE AT ALL than most of the FANS & MEDIAS seems a few weeks ago.

Another reason why they were not as close as everyone once thought was the point number 7 included in the NHLPA proposal which I'm sure you are familiar enough with to realize that it was an actual joke. And if not I can explain why it was if you would like me too.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
oil slick said:
"If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 55 percent of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues, the Clubs would be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive their full 55% Share."

Again though..

Say Colorado tops out at the high end of the cap.. And Pit falls way below that.. and somewhere in there the players do not get 55%... How exactly is this fixed? and who pays for it?

and if there is a floor.. how is pit going to hold a 29... heck even a 25 million dollar payroll?


How does this happen?

Linkage really has got be buggered on how they expect to enforce a cap.. and promise that players will actually get the 53-55%


:banghead:

Unless each team has the same payroll(or the number between floor and cap are small), based on league revenue % and revenue sharing is done BIG TIME... I don't understand how it gets done.
 

ctfan

Registered User
Oct 2, 2004
105
0
This has to be the most idiotic thread of all time. If the CBA spells out that players are to receive between 53% and 55% of designated hockey revenue than that is what they will receive. If a player signs a contract for $2,000,000 do we all sit around and argue how do we know he really gets paid $2,000,000. That's what lawyers and agents are for. An eventual CBA will spell out just how the players are guaranteed their share.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
nferr said:
This has to be the most idiotic thread of all time. If the CBA spells out that players are to receive between 53% and 55% of designated hockey revenue than that is what they will receive. If a player signs a contract for $2,000,000 do we all sit around and argue how do we know he really gets paid $2,000,000. That's what lawyers and agents are for. An eventual CBA will spell out just how the players are guaranteed their share.


I think its perfectly logical for us to want to know...

I would imagine there are many..many players who want to know the same thing..

I don't think the NHL has ever outlined in detail to the mass's how it would work.. if they did... I think it would be very appealing to the players.....(that is, if it actually would work the way we think it would)..

Joe Player does not know anything more about linkage than we do..
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Drury_Sakic said:
I think its perfectly logical for us to want to know...

I would imagine there are many..many players who want to know the same thing..

I don't think the NHL has ever outlined in detail to the mass's how it would work.. if they did... I think it would be very appealing to the players.....(that is, if it actually would work the way we think it would)..

Joe Player does not know anything more about linkage than we do..


Why? The NFL, NBA have a pretty set division of revenues with the players upon which the Cap rises or falls and they seem to get by fine even though there are some differences in team salaries, the players end up getting theirs. Are NHL attorneys more dumb than NFL and NBA attorneys that they can not figure this out, or even use the methods the other sports do? And we need to know the intricate details, why? To be honest as long as it is able to be done, and the other sports say that it is, they had better pay me to wade through those details.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,917
795
www.avalanchedb.com
No...


But the NFL and NBA bring in alot more money than the NHL in TV deals.. so the owner have no problem paying the players out of that...

NBA and NFL are better run organizations money wise than the NHL.. and have never had a problem keeping their franchises paying players what is required..

With the NHL.. if you propose that 53-55% of revenue goes to the players... how do you do that if the NHL has some teams that cannot pay for the minimum payroll that would be required to do that?

If you promise it.. you have to have some way of DOING THAT!

THE NHL DOES.. I repeat DOES NOT!

And there will be at least 4-6 teams that cannot pay the minimum.

Maybe they have some super plan that we are just not hearing about... BUT everything else has been leaked, why not that if it exists.

How do you make the Pens pay enough for its players to make it 53-55% league wide..

HOW?
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Drury_Sakic said:
No...


But the NFL and NBA bring in alot more money than the NHL in TV deals.. so the owner have no problem paying the players out of that...

NBA and NFL are better run organizations money wise than the NHL.. and have never had a problem keeping their franchises paying players what is required..

With the NHL.. if you propose that 53-55% of revenue goes to the players... how do you do that if the NHL has some teams that cannot pay for the minimum payroll that would be required to do that?

If you promise it.. you have to have some way of DOING THAT!

THE NHL DOES.. I repeat DOES NOT!

And there will be at least 4-6 teams that cannot pay the minimum.

Maybe they have some super plan that we are just not hearing about... BUT everything else has been leaked, why not that if it exists.

How do you make the Pens pay enough for its players to make it 53-55% league wide..

HOW?

Bad example as the Pens likely will have a new arena paid for by slots one way or another (either the license given to Mario's group, or the arena a condition of another getting the license) so the Pens should have no problem. But that is besides the point. If you have a negotiated figure, in this case 55%, it has to be made. Which means those details will be worked out, likely through revenue sharing. Bettman has said as much. But again, what difference the details as long as they get their 55% and they have good attorneys negotiating those details?
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
Drury_Sakic said:
No...


But the NFL and NBA bring in alot more money than the NHL in TV deals.. so the owner have no problem paying the players out of that...

NBA and NFL are better run organizations money wise than the NHL.. and have never had a problem keeping their franchises paying players what is required..

With the NHL.. if you propose that 53-55% of revenue goes to the players... how do you do that if the NHL has some teams that cannot pay for the minimum payroll that would be required to do that?

If you promise it.. you have to have some way of DOING THAT!

THE NHL DOES.. I repeat DOES NOT!

And there will be at least 4-6 teams that cannot pay the minimum.

Maybe they have some super plan that we are just not hearing about... BUT everything else has been leaked, why not that if it exists.

How do you make the Pens pay enough for its players to make it 53-55% league wide..

HOW?


dude

your not reading the damn thread

it states the answer to your question 20 times in this very thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

every team will put money into an escrow account, that money will be used to pay the players if that 55% is not reached...it will go to the NHLPA to get split between the players

now if 56% is reached by the NHLPA, the NHLPA will owe the NHL 1% of the money

is this that friggin hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

take a bank account

I have open a lemonade standand you get 55% the money but I only pay you 7$ for the whole day

to make sure you get 55% I put in 5 dollar in an escrow account, to make sure I get my 45% you put 5 dollars in a separate escrow account

we make 10 dollars

I get 4.50 and you get 5.50

you have already been paid the 7 dollars and have spent it, you go into your account and pay me the 1.50 I was owed in our deal

why, because I was guaranteed to make 45% of the profits which is 4.50

I made 10 dollars but I already paid you 7$

10-7=3

3+1.5= the 4.50 I was supposed to make
 

PecaFan

Registered User
Nov 16, 2002
9,243
520
Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
oil slick said:
Why was there anything beyond this [escrow] in the thread?

No frickin' idea. You can lead a horse to the answer, but you can't make them comprehend the simplist of principles.

At the end of the year, if the salaries are too low, the players get "topped up" from the escrow.
If the salaries paid out were too high, the owners get refunds from the escrow.

This ain't bloody quantum mechanics, people. :banghead:
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
The Messenger said:
The 42.5 mil offer had no floor .. teams could spend 15 mil on Salaries and the players cheated out of their 55% cut ..


No linkage means no linkage.

$42.5m * 30 = maximum of $1.275b

If Revenues are $2.1B the players can only make a maximum of 60.1%.

If Revenues are $1.5B the players can only make a maximum of 65%.

In all probability they will get around $1.0-1.15B and the league revenue will drop to $1.75B (57.5% - 65.7%).

Anyway 53%, 55%, 60%, 120% whatever % = irrelevant. The players wanted no linkage, they got no linkage.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
[
the messenger said:
The key to the THREAD is How do you guarantee the players 55% of league revenue??

You don't.

When the NHL offered the 55% it had a floor. The players don't want 55%, they were offered it and said no thanks. They can't have it both ways, 55% minimum and unlimited maximum %. The player DON'T want 55% guaranteed, so why do you keep saying it should be guaranteed?
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
Drury_Sakic said:
And there will be at least 4-6 teams that cannot pay the minimum.

The NHL has proposed revenue sharing in its linked proposals so that every team will be able to at least meet the minimum for the salary floor of 53% or whatever it turns out to be in the end. Very simple if you choose to not ignore these things.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
me2 said:
[

You don't.

When the NHL offered the 55% it had a floor. The players don't want 55%, they were offered it and said no thanks. They can't have it both ways, 55% minimum and unlimited maximum %. The player DON'T want 55% guaranteed, so why do you keep saying it should be guaranteed?
Bet you tomorrow after the meeting that Linkage is back on the table for the NHL ..

The players do not want Linkage because that requires TRUST in the owners numbers .. The players not to be connected to the OWNERS or the Revenue Stream directly if they can help it ..
 

ArtG

Registered User
Feb 9, 2004
2,815
12
Vancouver, BC
The Messenger said:
Bet you tomorrow after the meeting that Linkage is back on the table for the NHL ..

The players do not want Linkage because that requires TRUST in the owners numbers .. The players not to be connected to the OWNERS or the Revenue Stream directly if they can help it ..
Yes and it's hard to say you don't trust somebody when you haven't taken a legitimate look at them with your own specialists.

I hate to repeat Gary Bettman's words but he stated many times that the League offered its numbers to the PA's accountants and the PA never accepted that offer.

As for the not being connected to the revenue stream -- that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. How can you not be connected to the revenue stream of a company as a direct employee of that company?!?! Revenues go down, people get layed off. Revenues go up, the company expands, gives you a raise. It's pretty basic stuff here. Even the guys over at the PA understand this their problem is not that they don't want to be connected to the revenue streams of the Leauge, the just want to only get the positive impact of being connected to this stream while ignoring the negative impact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->