ok .. a positive about a cap .. maybe ?

[Brent Burns Beard]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

ok, tell me why the players cant ask for this in return for linkage.

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

2 - Full salary for this year. Hey, let the owners buy their way into the hard cap. Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all revenue and future revenue's to get the hard cap anyway.

Ok ...

dr

Click to read more...

 

[EricBowser]

Players should get 54% of all league revenues, this includes the playoffs, if the NHL tries to make it 54% of only certain things, then NHLPA is correct in saying no way.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

ok, tell me why the players cant ask for this in return for linkage.

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

2 - Full salary for this year. Hey, let the owners buy their way into the hard cap. Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all revenue and future revenue's to get the hard cap anyway.

Ok ...

dr

allow me to bump my thread.

i thought you all would be interested to see that i supported a cap in this thread.

dr

 

[Trottier]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

ok, tell me why the players cant ask for this in return for linkage.

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

Will both sides agree to having league revenues audited annually by an objective third-party? If so, then great. Not making that assumption, however.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

This is a critical point, not often addressed by Bettman and pro-hardcappers on this site. After you get your hardcap, what exactly are you going to do to generate (increased) revenue? Without a substantive answer, you are asking employees to lock into a "no growth" salary structure, potentially (in some cases) for the remainder of their careers.

 

[txomisc]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

ok, tell me why the players cant ask for this in return for linkage.

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

2 - Full salary for this year. Hey, let the owners buy their way into the hard cap. Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all revenue and future revenue's to get the hard cap anyway.

Ok ...

dr

I am not sure how you figure the players play the playoffs for free? They dont get paid on a per game basis, they get paid on a per hockey year basis. Playoffs are part of the hockey year.

Charging the owners for revenues not growing is a double whammy. First they aren't making anymore and you want to toss a penalty on that? It might be an ok idea if it were easy for owners to magically increase revenues. It's basically predicated on the idea that the owners are completely lying about revenue right now which may or may not be true.

There is no way players can get paid their full salaries for this year. First, there is no way there will be enough revenue to do this. Second, whether you want to admit it or not the players are just as responsible for the lockout as the owners. There is no CBA, no deal= no hockey. It's not as if there is a current deal in place and the NHL as shut it down. There is simply no contract. Why reward the players even further for being just as hardheaded? Your last sentence could easily be changed to "Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all income and future incomes's to avoid the hard cap anyway."

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I am not sure how you figure the players play the playoffs for free? They dont get paid on a per game basis, they get paid on a per hockey year basis. Playoffs are part of the hockey year.

Charging the owners for revenues not growing is a double whammy. First they aren't making anymore and you want to toss a penalty on that? It might be an ok idea if it were easy for owners to magically increase revenues. It's basically predicated on the idea that the owners are completely lying about revenue right now which may or may not be true.

There is no way players can get paid their full salaries for this year. First, there is no way there will be enough revenue to do this. Second, whether you want to admit it or not the players are just as responsible for the lockout as the owners. There is no CBA, no deal= no hockey. It's not as if there is a current deal in place and the NHL as shut it down. There is simply no contract. Why reward the players even further for being just as hardheaded? Your last sentence could easily be changed to "Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all income and future incomes's to avoid the hard cap anyway."

all fine points ... but if this is what it would take to get a hard cap, why wouldnt the owners do it ?

the players were willing to give up half a billion dollars, with only the hope they could get it back, to get their system.

dr

 

[txomisc]

all fine points ... but if this is what it would take to get a hard cap, why wouldnt the owners do it ?

the players were willing to give up half a billion dollars, with only the hope they could get it back, to get their system.

dr

I'm not sure they wouldn't. I am also not sure that the players would be willing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just want to set an example of the 54% cap of revenues going to the players.
Let's assume we are an owner of an entertainment business, and we hold an event that brings in... $5,000,000.00 in revenues. The workers (players) will be guaranteed $2,700,000, while the owner pockets $2,300,000.

But, from that $2,300,000 generated, calculate how much it cost to run the event, to pay the staff that setup the event, countless operating bills to run and manage the facilities, equipment costs, medical/health costs/benefits, accomodations (hotel, air-fare, per diems, etc.). There are so many costs involved that will end up eating up the revenues. But luckily there is a chance of either breaking even or gaining a profit depending on the number of corporate sponsors.

So, who is taking the biggest risk in this piece of the business? The owners of course. And when spending money on players, they aren't always getting what they paid for. And then you have a few select clubs who helped drive up the average player salary and contributed on a large part of setting the marketplace which makes it difficult for the other businesses operating within the same industry to compete with them. Call it capitalism, I call it an unfair and irresponsible way of conducting business when you are involved in a partnership with all the teams in a league. And those clubs who practiced these unconventionial methods should be punished for their actions, ergo the need for a salary cap. Just take a look at where all the highest paid players play, they play within some of the biggest markets.

There are those who think the players shouldn't take a hit. Well here is where the problem lies. PLAYER-A sees PLAYER-B get $9,000,000 from a company who can afford to pay him those wages. PLAYER-A says to himself "I'm just as good as that player, maybe better, I want $9,000,000." His company comes back to him saying, "Sorry, we can't afford to pay you that amount, we'll offer you $7,000,000, making you the highest paid player on the team." So PLAYER-A goes to test the market and sees that there are... 5 organizations out there who could pay what he is seeking. Do you know how this affects the 25 other organizations within the same industry? An industry in which all 30 organizations must work together to make the one single entity they represent (the NHL) to be successful as a whole? That is where the problem lies.

But there must also be a better system of revenue sharing implemented by the owners, that goes without saying.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I just want to set an example of the 54% cap of revenues going to the players.
Let's assume we are an owner of an entertainment business, and we hold an event that brings in... $5,000,000.00 in revenues. The workers (players) will be guaranteed $2,700,000, while the owner pockets $2,300,000.

well the owners arent offering the workers 54%. the workers in the case of an event (hockey or not) are the ushers, ticket takers, parking lot attendants etc.

the reason the players command that much is because they are the event.

if you make and sell widgets a good 70% of your expendetures would go into the production of them. the players are the primary component of the production of the NHL product.

dr

dr

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Lets say the workers in my entertainment business example are the actors (players). Sure people pay to be entertained and watch the actors (players) perform. But they are spending money to watch a good product. And sometimes those high priced actors are not worth the price of admission.
The players are part of the product. Hockey at the NHL level is the major component that sells the product.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Lets say the workers in my entertainment business example are the actors (players). Sure people pay to be entertained and watch the actors (players) perform. But they are spending money to watch a good product. And sometimes those high priced actors are not worth the price of admission.
The players are part of the product. Hockey at the NHL level is the major component that sells the product.

isnt that what i said ?
dr

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"the reason the players command that much is because they are the event."

You kinda contradicted yourself... I should point that out. But yes, I basically repeated what you said.

And I think you will find my reasoning as to why a salary cap is necessary to be a reasonable explanation was to why the players must compromise that when they return to the NHL, they will be playing in a league that has some form of a salary cap.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

"the reason the players command that much is because they are the event."

You kinda contradicted yourself... I should point that out. But yes, I basically repeated what you said.

And I think you will find my reasoning as to why a salary cap is necessary to be a reasonable explanation was to why the players must compromise that when they return to the NHL, they will be playing in a league that has some form of a salary cap.

i think i have been consistent in saying the only way their is a negotiated settlement is if the players agree to linkage.

that being said, how about a response to the original post ?

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Charging the owners for revenues not growing is a double whammy. First they aren't making anymore and you want to toss a penalty on that? It might be an ok idea if it were easy for owners to magically increase revenues. It's basically predicated on the idea that the owners are completely lying about revenue right now which may or may not be true.

well, i dont think its unreasonable for the players to count on the owners increasing revenue, since they want to tie their pay to it. do you not expect your pay to increase year over year ?

secondly, the owners asked the players to "guarantee" their offer, do you remember that ? this is just turnaround. its the players asking the owners to guarantee their deal will work out for the players.

i say the owners trading revenue certainty for cost certainty is a reasonable demand by the players.

dr

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

1 - Revenue Certainty. The players and owners agree what is todays revenue's and set a date to count those same revenue's again.

If the the league hasnt grown in revenue by X %, the owners will be charged a penalty. This instantly cures the trust issue, it behooves the owners to declare at least enough of their revenue to show the growth.

2 - Full salary for this year. Hey, let the owners buy their way into the hard cap. Whats the difference, they were prepared to scorch all revenue and future revenue's to get the hard cap anyway.

#1... it seems very logical, reasonable and only fair for that to happen. But as Bettman once said, "We aren't even talking the same language." All 30 NHL teams operate their organizations in whatever way they wish... but I would like to see them all record their financial transactions/operations in a universal format. This information does not have to be disclosed to the public, but it provides better organization and understanding of how these teams operate.

But there is a problem with your proposal of the owners being charged a penalty when revenues don't grow. When revenues don't grow they already are taking a hit are they not? Do you think their goal isn't for revenues to grow? And it is also even more difficult when you consider the TV deal the NHL signed with NBC that hardly guarantees anything. The league as a whole needs to do a better job promoting the product. But an even bigger problem is that not all teams have the same resources. I don't think you can fairly penalize all the owners for lack of revenues. Which is why "cost certainty" and revenue sharing is a must.

#2... By full salary for this year; do you mean players should earn what they were set to get if there was a full season during a shortened season? That isn't fair when you consider the fact that the NHL has lost so many games due to this lockout. The players and owners both have to take a hit during a lockout so that they can sense the urgency of getting a deal done.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

well, i dont think its unreasonable for the players to count on the owners increasing revenue, since they want to tie their pay to it. do you not expect your pay to increase year over year ?

dr

Sure, not an unreasonable expectation at all. And if the players wish to meet this expectation all they have to do is play to the level where league revenues continue to grow and they are guaranteed a pay raise along with the increase in revenues. If the players managed to be so entertaining that they attracted a major TV deal then they are guaranteed a huge winfall. Seems pretty straight forward. Or does your employer hand out huge wage increase when company revenues decrease?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

...does your employer hand out huge wage increase when company revenues decrease? ...

a few notes.

1) my employer doesnt force me to tie my pay directly to revenue.
2) if they did, i would expect them to be responsible to increase their revenue so mine would go up as well. if thats how they want to pay me, they better be able to meet my expectations or else i will find someone else.

i suppose you could argue no one pays more than the NHL, so lump it or leave it.

but you asked about me.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

But there is a problem with your proposal of the owners being charged a penalty when revenues don't grow. When revenues don't grow they already are taking a hit are they not? Do you think their goal isn't for revenues to grow? And it is also even more difficult when you consider the TV deal the NHL signed with NBC that hardly guarantees anything. The league as a whole needs to do a better job promoting the product. But an even bigger problem is that not all teams have the same resources. I don't think you can fairly penalize all the owners for lack of revenues. Which is why "cost certainty" and revenue sharing is a must.

the owners asked the players to "guarantee" their luxury tax proposal. this is the owners version of "guarantee" for their hard cap proposal.

secondly, the owners have a responsibility to make good business decisions. otherwise, what again is their *role* in this partnership ? the players provide the physical product and the owners provide the money. this is the owners share of the partnership.

#2... By full salary for this year; do you mean players should earn what they were set to get if there was a full season during a shortened season? That isn't fair when you consider the fact that the NHL has lost so many games due to this lockout. The players and owners both have to take a hit during a lockout so that they can sense the urgency of getting a deal done.

i dont care if it isnt fair. if the owners can buy their way into it (linkage), would they ? maybe its a good investment on their part ? just like many would conisder the 24% rollback a good investment for hte players side.

dr

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the owners asked the players to "guarantee" their luxury tax proposal. this is the owners version of "guarantee" for their hard cap proposal.

The owners "guarantee" is in the form of the contracts the player have signed that they are paid for. During a lockout, of course they aren't paid. How about a "guarantee" of the players performance? How about a "guarantee" of a playoff spot? Think realistically here. A tax isn't going to prevent the spending of the Rangers. Look at the New York Yankees.

secondly, the owners have a responsibility to make good business decisions. otherwise, what again is their *role* in this partnership ? the players provide the physical product and the owners provide the money. this is the owners share of the partnership.

You just answered your own question. The owners invest billions of dollars into this business. It is an investment. There is a ton of responsibility on part of the owners, but it is difficult to compete when a few certain clubs can throw away money and sign away all the top prospects you developed to become superstars. Who is risking to lose more (financially), the players or the owners? During the lockout I'd say it is the players... but when operating a business, it is clearly the owners. Of course they have to make the right investments. Look at what the New York Rangers, Islanders, Stars, Capitals have done with their investments. But what happens is that it ends up hurting all the other partners (the other owners) involved in this business, professional hockey.

i dont care if it isnt fair. if the owners can buy their way into it (linkage), would they ? maybe its a good investment on their part ? just like many would conisder the 24% rollback a good investment for hte players side.

You may not care if it isn't fair but people who have invested their money in it might. You further prove the fact that there really isn't much of a risk the players have to make when it comes down to the business and economics of the sport. And I don't think you grasp nor understand how this business operates judged by your comments. This is a partnership that involves all 30 owners and 700+ members of the NHLPA. When hockey is hurting, it isn't helping a majority of the owners. You don't think they wish to have the ratings the other pro sports in the US have?
Yet some teams spend foolishly, players salaries are on the rise, revenues may be up, but they do not match those of the other sports, especially when a large percentage of it is going to the players.

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

Players should get 54% of all league revenues, this includes the playoffs, if the NHL tries to make it 54% of only certain things, then NHLPA is correct in saying no way.

The owner should make less money than the product!?!?!

Sorry but the players should not make more than 49%. If you invested in a product but only recieved 46% return on the investment, what would you do? Would you invest? Why should the Owners?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

. If you invested in a product but only recieved 46% return on the investment, what would you do? Would you invest? Why should the Owners?

i think you might want to reword that. it cant be what you mean.

if i could get a 49% return on my investments, i would publicly pee myself.

dr

 

[Biggest Canuck Fan]

i think you might want to reword that. it cant be what you want.

if i could get a 49% return on my investments, i would publicly pee myself.

dr

No that is what I am saying.... think about it.

I go into a board meeting and tell my board of directors that my company has just invested in a venture.

Now I tell them we are guaranteed to recieve only 46% of the revenue stream of each year. So we basically break even, make a slight profit or a slight loss depending on how my competitor who doesn't care what or how he spends drives up the cost.

How long would it take that board of directors to veto my plans and go in a different direction?

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

No that is what I am saying.... think about it.

I go into a board meeting and tell my board of directors that my company has just invested in a venture.

Now I tell them we are guaranteed to recieve only 46% of the revenue stream of each year. So we basically break even, make a slight profit or a slight loss depending on how my competitor who doesn't care what or how he spends drives up the cost.

How long would it take that board of directors to veto my plans and go in a different direction?

it depends on other factors as well. such as (but not limited to) growth and market share, as well as amalgamating or expanding of operations.

but regardless, 46% even as gross profit before overheads is very agressive and not many industries target more than 25 - 30 % left after direct costs.

dr

 

[me2]

well, the revenue figures cited by the league i assume include playoff revenue. if this is the case, then the player no longer are playing the playoffs for free.

a) playoff revenue should be counted in when calculating revenue.

b) the players were never "not paid" to play in the playoffs. How much would Blake or Pronger get if they weren't going to play in the playoffs? A lot less. Their playoff wages were factored into the yearly wage.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

a) playoff revenue should be counted in when calculating revenue.

b) the players were never "not paid" to play in the playoffs. How much would Blake or Pronger get if they weren't going to play in the playoffs? A lot less. Their playoff wages were factored into the yearly wage.

ok ... how come its always common folklore that the players dont get paid for the playoffs then ?

dr