NHLPA tells us what (somewhat)

[Jazz]

30 teams at 45 million is 1.35 billion dollars. This represents 65% of league revenues and that is way too high.

The nhlpa still doesn't get it. They are entitled to about 53% of league revenues so they have to agree to a system that permits this. Next year, they wil agree to a deal that gives them 53% of a much smaller pie.

Contradictory statements, you say the small market teams will never get near the cap then you use the 30 team figure multiplied by the entire cap to justify the over expenditure percentage.

Not at all contradictory - linkage will only define a maximum percentage of all revenues that goes towards payrolls, so by definition, you have to multiply the maximum figure by the number of teams...

 

[kdb209]

Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

No. If you read the details of the PA's last proposal (including the infamous clause #7), it would have set a baseline of revenues next year (05-06) when everyone knows revenue will be down and uses that to index upwards. It's not unreasonable to expect revenues to drop 20-30% next year. If they just grow back to pre-lockout lavels by year 6, their $49M cap would be $64M ($70M+ with their +10% exceptions).

 

[bling]

Not at all contradictory - linkage will only define a maximum percentage of all revenues that goes towards payrolls, so by definition, you have to multiply the maximum figure by the number of teams...

If you are trying to get a maximum possible figure, yes. But what the original poster said that was contradictory was that small market teams will not spend the cap limit so therefore the 65 percent of all revenues is incorrect. With not all teams spending to the highest possible level it is going to be something less than the maximum possible percentage.

 

[shveik]

Not at all contradictory - linkage will only define a maximum percentage of all revenues that goes towards payrolls, so by definition, you have to multiply the maximum figure by the number of teams...

Actually bling is correct. The players share of the revenue is the number of teams multiplied by the *average* payroll. And since the original poster admits that not all teams will make it to the max, the average payroll is guaranteed to be lower than the maximum allowed payroll (cap).

 

[shveik]

No. If you read the details of the PA's last proposal (including the infamous clause #7), it would have set a baseline of revenues next year (05-06) when everyone knows revenue will be down and uses that to index upwards. It's not unreasonable to expect revenues to drop 20-30% next year. If they just grow back to pre-lockout lavels by year 6, their $49M cap would be $64M ($70M+ with their +10% exceptions).

Well, that's a different story. It means that the players proposal was more like say 55-60 million cap (average over 6 years), and not 49. If that's what NHLPA really meant, then that kind of cap is more or less meaningless. I do not have a problem with that, since I do not like cap anyways. It just means that the compromise we thought was reached is just an illusion. NHL and NHLPA are still as far apart as they were to begin with.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

$30 million would be too high for a minimum, $25 million would be ok.

If you can't spend 30 million on a professional leagues payroll...then maybe you should be hosting AHL games

 

[me2]

Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

Sure but are the players going to accept an equivalent drop in payrolls?

Answer: NO WAY!

 

[me2]

Why should the players voluntarily agree to limit their earning capacity?

Because they want to get paid. No cap, no job, no pay, their choice.

What I am saying is that there is hardly any difference between no linkage (what NHL has already agreed to), and only positive linkage (the clause in question), so it is not a big issue for negotiations.

If there is no difference then the NHLPA should just sign on and be done with it.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

A min at 30 million is far too high. Try 20 million if a cap is set at 45.

No this is not a minor league sports league

If you can't spend 30 million, sell 90% of your tickets, have 10,000+ season ticket holders and a profitable local TV contract

Then I would suggest an AHL team would be the way to go

As much as I want hockey to start next year. I want contraction more.

Get rid of the stiff teams, have a dispersal draft like the entry draft and viola parity and a chance for ALL teams to make the playoffs and make some extra $$$

Someone said today a 20 team league would not be a profitable as a 30 team league. I just finished laughing actually.

Edmonton and Calgary would get to see Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal 2 or 3 times a year. SELLOUTS. Ottawa would play Montreal and Toronto 4 or 5 times at home SELLOUTS

The match ups would be better. The salaries would be driven down by lack of jobs and the law of supply and demand. Some of the Euro players could go back home and build up their leagues so after the NHL champion was crowned. A tourny with all the winners of the professional leagues could he held and the Stanley Cup awarded to the best team in the world.

Obviously there would be less games during the season, obviously the result would be 90-95% attendance.

As well the contracted teams could move AHL teams to the cities affected and they could build their hockey knowledge and get a feel if the area is a potential hockey hotbed. Then after 3 or 4 years SLOWLY expand with the cities moved at the top of the list if there was hockey growth

If we were ALL being honest we would admit some cities are just not ready for hockey. And as much as I feel sorry for the fans of those cities, enough is enough.

Shape up or move out

 

[me2]

Well, that's a different story. It means that the players proposal was more like say 55-60 million cap (average over 6 years), and not 49. If that's what NHLPA really meant, then that kind of cap is more or less meaningless. I do not have a problem with that, since I do not like cap anyways. It just means that the compromise we thought was reached is just an illusion. NHL and NHLPA are still as far apart as they were to begin with.

The NHLPAs cap was up to $54m ($49m+$4.9m) + $2 or so million in extras the NHL included under its cap. So that $56m + 20-30% growth is a bucket load of cash.

 

[codswallop]

If you can't spend 30 million on a professional leagues payroll...then maybe you should be hosting AHL games

I'm intrigued.

What's the reasoning behind that figure (or one in close proximity to that)?

I'm talking about valued data, real data. From each team, their revenues and expenditures, to arrive at a league wide average. One that can be confirmed and/or agreed upon by both parties in this debate.

(hint; this is a trick question)

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

No this is not a minor league sports league

If you can't spend 30 million, sell 90% of your tickets, have 10,000+ season ticket holders and a profitable local TV contract

Then I would suggest an AHL team would be the way to go

As much as I want hockey to start next year. I want contraction more.

Get rid of the stiff teams, have a dispersal draft like the entry draft and viola parity and a chance for ALL teams to make the playoffs and make some extra $$$

Someone said today a 20 team league would not be a profitable as a 30 team league. I just finished laughing actually.

Edmonton and Calgary would get to see Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal 2 or 3 times a year. SELLOUTS. Ottawa would play Montreal and Toronto 4 or 5 times at home SELLOUTS

The match ups would be better. The salaries would be driven down by lack of jobs and the law of supply and demand. Some of the Euro players could go back home and build up their leagues so after the NHL champion was crowned. A tourny with all the winners of the professional leagues could he held and the Stanley Cup awarded to the best team in the world.

Obviously there would be less games during the season, obviously the result would be 90-95% attendance.

As well the contracted teams could move AHL teams to the cities affected and they could build their hockey knowledge and get a feel if the area is a potential hockey hotbed. Then after 3 or 4 years SLOWLY expand with the cities moved at the top of the list if there was hockey growth

If we were ALL being honest we would admit some cities are just not ready for hockey. And as much as I feel sorry for the fans of those cities, enough is enough.

Shape up or move out

If you have a 20 team league then it may be Edmonton or Calgary that gets lost. Thats why I don't want the 30 million minimum. I know both teams "can" meet the minimum but they would rely on the canadian dollar for profitable seasons and non profit seasons.

It is also impossible to cut that many teams, especially after the new arenas teams have been buying and planning to set up. No teams are going to fold during the lockout, the owners would be stupid to to go this far without waiting for the green grass on the other side.

I think thats being a little selfish knowing that Ottawa would survive with that plan. Would you be thinking the same way if Canada lost three of those 10 teams?

 

[Steve L*]

Arent the Oilers struggling despite selling out?

How would contraction and less games help them survive?

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Since the NHL keeps saying that the revenues are going to drop, it should not be a problem for the league to accept this clause.

That would all depend on the "index year". If I was Bettman, I wouldn't have any problem if the index year was 2003-2004. I would have a HUGE problem if the index year was 2005-2006. Even if there was a "short" year this year, everyone expects next year was going to down substantially. It'd be crazy to go through all of the pain that the league has been through, only to give it all away as the league recovers over the next 5 or so years.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

1) While we expected the upper limit number on payroll would increase over the six-year term of the deal as hockey revenues increased, the NHL's position today was that the upper limit would remain a fixed number for six years, regardless of any growth in hockey revenues.

So they never did ditch that Clause # 7 poison pill providing them with linkage upward, but not downward, did they? Screw 'em then, they deserve the vastly lower number they will have to settle for next year.

Listen, this is the first year of the cap.
The players have agreed to it. Isn't that enough?
I'm sure this could have been negotiated.

The NHL could have said, well, we can't move this up simply because revenues go up. What if the increased revenue is coming only from big market teams, the teams that are the cup threshold?
Perhaps it increase in the cap could have been tied to the average revenues increases from teams 15-25.

The pro-owner side is riddled with ideologues who have become separated from reality.
Negotiations aren't about ideology, they are about practicalities.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I'm intrigued.

What's the reasoning behind that figure (or one in close proximity to that)?

I'm talking about valued data, real data. From each team, their revenues and expenditures, to arrive at a league wide average. One that can be confirmed and/or agreed upon by both parties in this debate.

(hint; this is a trick question)

My reasoning is like this.
I some teams are willing to spend $78 Million, and other times are struggling to break even at $21 Million, you've got a major problem.

I can't believe you people still don't see the value of a strong luxury tax.

I can't believe you people don't see the owners' greed for what it is.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Listen, this is the first year of the cap.
The players have agreed to it. Isn't that enough?
I'm sure this could have been negotiated.

The NHL could have said, well, we can't move this up simply because revenues go up. What if the increased revenue is coming only from big market teams, the teams that are the cup threshold?
Perhaps it increase in the cap could have been tied to the average revenues increases from teams 15-25.

The pro-owner side is riddled with ideologues who have become separated from reality.
Negotiations aren't about ideology, they are about practicalities.

WTF is so difficult to understand about this? The $42.5M figure the owners were proposing is what they are willing to spend when the league is healthy (based on 2003-04). Everyone has said that there is going to be SUBSTANTIAL damage to the game, players and owners alike. The system the players have asked for would be to get the owners best offer from when the league is healthy, and then inflate along with the recovery, to put us RIGHT back to where we are before the lockout.

EXAMPLE: League revenues go down by 33% (might be slightly high, but I think it's realistic, especially if you look at losing a big portion the US TV revenue) from last year. Total revenues are would be $1.4B in 2005-2006. Let's say that over the 6 year agreement, league revenues go back up to where the were in 2003-2004. That's 50% growth from the "index year". The new cap number would be $73.5M ($49M x 1.5) which is really $80M with the 10% exceptions, with the same exact revenue streams from last year. Even if there was only 25% reduction in revenues next year, that would put the cap at $65M.

 

[Cully9]

Someone said today a 20 team league would not be a profitable as a 30 team league. I just finished laughing actually.

When the NHL was a 21-team league, it's revenues weren't even close to what they are with a 30-team league. The only issue that messes up the profit equation is that salaries have risen at an even more dramatic rate. So, control salaries, and a 30-team league most definitely has more profit potential than a 20-team league.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

Despite what some "fans" in the Centre of the Universe think, the NHL isn't a top 4 sport anymore. Hell the PGA, Nascar, Poker, and some other fringe sports are passing the NHL! So, just because money bags like Tanenbaum and Illitch have the jack, doesn't mean the players deserve it. I know most Leaf fans don't give a rats ass about their fellow NHL clubs, let alone the suffering Canadian teams, but let's please try to show some compassion for fans of small markets.

 

[Cully9]

I can't believe you people don't see the owners' greed for what it is.

We've been thrown off the by the bankruptcies and cash infusions that they've put in to keep teams afloat. If it means they're greedy wanting to turn a profit, then so be it. But, to me, they have every right to turn one if that's how they want the business to run.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

WTF is so difficult to understand about this? The $42.5M figure the owners were proposing is what they are willing to spend when the league is healthy (based on 2003-04). Everyone has said that there is going to be SUBSTANTIAL damage to the game, players and owners alike. The system the players have asked for would be to get the owners best offer from when the league is healthy, and then inflate along with the recovery, to put us RIGHT back to where we are before the lockout.

EXAMPLE: League revenues go down by 33% (might be slightly high, but I think it's realistic, especially if you look at losing a big portion the US TV revenue) from last year. Total revenues are would be $1.4B in 2005-2006. Let's say that over the 6 year agreement, league revenues go back up to where the were in 2003-2004. That's 50% growth from the "index year". The new cap number would be $73.5M ($49M x 1.5) which is really $80M with the 10% exceptions, with the same exact revenue streams from last year. Even if there was only 25% reduction in revenues next year, that would put the cap at $65M.

No dude, you listen.
You keep making unsubstantiated claims.
You don't know the numbes involved. You act like they can't be negotiated in a fair manner.
You act like there's NO WAY to negotiate a modest increase in the cap as revenues increase.

It's nonsense.
The pro-players side continually ignores the fact that this is NEGOTIATION.
I keep hearing things like, well, if we the owners don't get exactly what they want, we're right back in the same situation. Irregardless of facts, or numbers. I hear this.
I continually here pro-owner people state that a $45 Million cap would kill the league. Yet they can never, when challenged, explain how that $2.5 million difference in the cap is going to ruin the league.
Now, because the players want assurances that salaries go up, you guys are crying "sky is falling"
I've got news for you, bud.
Just about every union in the world negotiates increases in contract, even if they settle for concessions in year 1.
Just about every union asks for 1.5 percent increases plus other COST OF LIVING (Inflationary) raises.
It's standard.
Is that what the NHLPA is asking? WHo knows?
But It's absurd to suggest that some kind of program to increase the cap would put the game "right where it was" Because it would take years and years and years to get the NHL back to $78 million payrolls.
These are points that can be negotiated.
If you want to protect the small market teams, then you find a way to tie the increase to the fortunes of the smaller market teams.
You can negotiate these things.

That is, of course, if you are even seeking solution.

 

[Icey]

1) While we expected the upper limit number on payroll would increase over the six-year term of the deal as hockey revenues increased, the NHL's position today was that the upper limit would remain a fixed number for six years, regardless of any growth in hockey revenues.

So they never did ditch that Clause # 7 poison pill providing them with linkage upward, but not downward, did they? Screw 'em then, they deserve the vastly lower number they will have to settle for next year.

they wanted the cap rise towards the end of the CBA provided certain revenue provisions had been met. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Its no different than you working year after year and never receiving a raise. You would probably tell your boss that is unreasonable if your company's revenues had been growing.

 

[OilerFan4Life]

they wanted the cap rise towards the end of the CBA provided certain revenue provisions had been met. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Its no different than you working year after year and never receiving a raise. You would probably tell your boss that is unreasonable if your company's revenues had been growing.

They can't have it both ways. The PA refuses to negotiate on the basis of "downward" linkage, but are gladly willing to take "upward" linkage. WTF is that??

Down with the PA!!!!

 

[CarlRacki]

they wanted the cap rise towards the end of the CBA provided certain revenue provisions had been met. I don't think this is an unreasonable request. Its no different than you working year after year and never receiving a raise. You would probably tell your boss that is unreasonable if your company's revenues had been growing.

That's fair, but what's unfair is the PA's insistence of making it a one-way street. In most work settings, an increase in company revenues means salaries will rise. On the other hand, a dip in company revenues usually means layoffs and pay cuts. The PA seems to want to reap the rewards when the NHL succeeds, but want to no part in sharing the risk if/when things take a downturn.

Frankly, after months of strident anti-linkage rhetoric, it's an exceptionally hypocritical stance for them to take.

 

[Egil]

The problem is that the PA caved on the cap too late. We needed to be where we are right now in January, not Mid Febuary, and that is what is killing this deal.

The players letter can basically be summed up as follows:

We gave in on a cap, and the 24% rollback, and were not making a fuss about the UFA age. Everything else goes our way, and we have a deal. Note how they are still enfatuated with their Dec 9th offer, and the "system changes" proposed in it.