Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by SENSible1*, May 26, 2005.
Sounds like nothing got done.
Earth shattering... wow. It's all so clear now.
I'm hoping the early ending today suggests they hashed out a basic understanding of possible revenue for all the clubs and can now get down to the tougher business of negotiating a definition of what is to be included and what % goes to each group.
I really hope this meeting started it like 8 am
How many small group meetings have they had on figuring what is revenue and what is not revenue?Three meetings two weeks ago,two meetings last week and two meetings this week.All on financial and accounting issues
I would think so. It's amazing that it's only taken 10 months to do this
What are you expecting to get done ??
These are financial fact finding meetings they are not collective bargaining sessions ..
They are simply reviewing the way each team is reporting revenue, what is included and perhaps what constitutes Hockey Revenue from both sides .. They are not trying to hammer out a CBA at these meetings ?? They are getting information for future proposals ..
I understand all this, but it's taken 10 months to decide what's to be included in revenue findings? What the hell has been going on during this time, and why didn't anyone decide to do this back in July?
From the TSN release
The answer to your question is easy .. The NHLPA has always taken the stance from day 1 that they are not interested in becoming partners with the owners ..
Revenue is an issue that Owners and Bettman are controlling .. The NHLPA approach has been reducing player costs to the teams to make them profitable, and that approach is not based on league revenue ..
However the latest NHLPA ideas and concepts thrown on the table are now a team by team Salary range and scale that shifts based on easily defined revenue, for that procedure they now needs to define that ..
What other information is there to include? This is absolutely ludocrous.
Darcy Tucker's agent was on Leafs Lunch. He said the cap floor is at $22 mil and the cap ceiling is at $34 mil and they're discussing linkage. If true, it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot.
Goodenow and Bettman are not at these meetings .. So blaming either for more information needed, further talks required or stalling or holding up an new CBA based on these meetings would also be ludicrous.. IMO
That's the first word that came into my head when I read that.
That is harsh. To be honest, I'd be shocked to see the #'s go that low and still be agreed to by the PA.
What makes it ludicrous is that this wasn't done 10 months ago.
It sure doesn't. I may be more in favor of the players than the owners, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that February is when the deal should have been done. If Goodenow just wait out for a deadline (June 15), that should raise up a little bit, the number will be closer to $40M
Short meeting. Hopefully they schedule 4 meeting for next week with Gary and Bobby.
too simplistic an interpretation. First, what scale is this based off of? if that's off of $2.1 billion in revenues, then yeah that's a complete ripoff for the players. if that's a projection for next year based on assumptions of declining revenues because of the lockout, it could be more reasonable.
Second, the $42.5 mill cap offer from the NHL in February apparently wasn't too friendly to the players in other areas of importance, like the other usual major issues such as arbitration, free agency, qualifying offers, etc. And who knows what else was thrown into it as well that might have made it very unattractive once you get past the initial $$ figure.
It's hard to say for certain if a deal now is really worse than a deal in February...especially if it ends up with some kind of moving cap that can end up going higher with more revenues
Those are basically the numbers that Stan Fischler floated in his article last week ..
The NHL made a proposal to the NHLPA based on those figures ..
How are your getting from here BEING DISCUSSED to AGREED UPON by the NHLPA in the new CBA ??
That might be quite a heap of faith on your part without a safety net ..
Even if its accepted .. How do you know the NHL didn't have to agree to UFA at age 26 or agree to pay last wages by extending all contracts one year at old rates??
I'm not surprised. They're Levitt's numbers with a 10-20% drop due to revenue loss from the lockout. They needed to hit $33 mil or so average with Levitt's numbers before the lockout (even according to the NHLPA's Dec 9 24% rollback on $44 mil). So they were bound to fall from there 10-20% and they did. They make plenty of sense to me. Goodenow's position taken throughout doesn't.
I suspect that no matter what happens, you are never going to say that Bobby screwed up big time, because after all, we never saw all the particulars of all the offers that were on the table at various points in time.
Average payroll in NHL 2003-4 = around $44 mil
Dec 9th PA proposal = 24% off = around $33 mil
10-20% off from revenue loss due to lockout = $27-30 mil average payroll required now.
A floor of $22 mil and a ceiling of $34 mil gets close to those average payroll numbers without having to read a single article !!
The fact that the meeting got done early and it was followed by a message stating that a meeting w/ the big boys will happening soon tells me that they completed whatever it was they were trying to accomplish over the last two days. Hopefully that means the negotiating can get moving now.
That's what I'm getting out of it too. If they were going over accounting issues, they completed most of what they wanted to get done this week yesterday and only had to talk about a few items today. Like GKJ has been saying in this thread, all this crap should have been done 10 months ago.