- Status
Spungo said:
No. The cap and tax kill any advantage the players would have had. As well, I thought the February deal was much like the players had outlined but with a hard cap at $42 million. It was the players framework, but with the NHL's numbers. Goodenow ran scared and demanded an extra $9 million per team.
SuperUnknown
Registered User
Spungo said:
The simple fact that they lost all that money means it is worse.
As for the rest, there's no telling that they couldn't have negociated these in february (or before).
The whole point is that the players were in a situation where they were losing a bit more each day passing by but had a tactic of waiting. (see how ridiculous it is)
In other words, due to the economical state of the game (which has regressed) and the loss of a season, there is no way the owners can give more than they could have at the start of last season. The job of the NHLPA's leaders were to get that extra through negociations, which they didn't. This is going to be a case study on what not to do for future employee negociators.
SuperUnknown
Registered User
The Iconoclast said:
If I'm not mistaken either, it was $42M + bonus (other player costs). The rumoured deal is at best $39M including player costs (so about $6M less at best).
Mess
Global Moderator
Okay ..Smail said:Regardless of what's signed, it's going to be worse than agreeing to a CBA back in February simply because the players lost over $1B since then (plus fans, etc). The only better deal would be one where players will receive over $1B more in what they're going to sign than the February deal. And if you think this is going to happen...
You hear this argument a lot here .. but is it valid in this regard ?.
In February when the final offer occurred and the season cancelled Feb 16th . A large portion on the season was already gone and wasted by then.. The NHL was talking about a 30 game NHL season at that point had the players accepted the $42.5 mil Final offer.
Does anyone believe that the players would have received their full 82 game season pay cheques for playing just 30 games ??
So in that respect is the $1 bil you are using here accurate ?? Or is their full years Salary amount prorated over just the 30 games the actual player sacrifice made at that point in time ?.
Had the final offer occurred in September your point would be valid, and the whole bargain process could be questioned before the season began but in February you can't turn back time and correct mistakes.
Also in regards to fans and damage due to the lockout we don't know what may or may not happen yet, and February damage for 1/2 as season lost verses a full is even harder to make any conclusions without facts.
SuperUnknown
Registered User
The Messenger said:
I'm just going on memory, but if I remember, the number quoted in the media was $900M (remember that they would have received money from the playoffs).
The previous capped offer similar to what they will sign for was made even a bit earlier and then there could have been more games possibly.
Mess
Global Moderator
Again it all depends on the full picture and all the facts ..Smail said:
Everyone will agree that 42.5 is a bigger number then 39 or what ever the new CBA ceiling is .. granted but that is not the end of the story though ..
A simple thing like Revenue sharing in the new deal NOW could easily negate that difference ..
Lets take your $6 mil worst case scenario difference as an example ..
How many teams would have gone to the $42.5 Final offer ceiling and taken advantage of this excess Cap space ??
Lets make it a generous 10 teams (1/3 the league) .. So $6 mil dif X 10 teams = $60 mil lost to the NHLPA via Cap space spending Final offer to now. Correct??
So now in the new CBA NOW if it includes an increase of $60 mil revenue sharing more then the Final offer include, of money that will be taken from these big market teams and given to the smaller markets to top up salaries in their markets then are we not at break-even for the NHLPA ??
Then just to show that my example is not totally hypothetical but could actually be the case .. Current rumours suggest that we are looking at a $22 mil floor & $36 mil ceiling lets say just so we guarantee the $6 mil Cap Space loss.. We all heard of a $1 for $1 luxury tax starting at $29-30 mil with in that range .. Correct ???..
So if we use say $ 30 mil as the starting point of luxury tax and the same 10 teams that would have spent $42.5 before .. then each of those teams in order to go to the new Cap ceiling of $36 mil will incur $6 mil in luxury tax fines to do it ?? (going from $30 mil to $36 mil at $1 fine = $6 mil) Correct ??
Well $ 6 mil in fines X 10 teams = $60 mil Revenue sharing money generated .. Same figure as Cap space lost Feb CBA verses Now !!!!.
So to the NHLPA they are still at break-even here and the only difference now is that it is the bottom teams spending the revenue sharing fine $60 mil on player wages and not the top teams.. To those 10 teams in question here that would have gone to the $42.5 mil max ceiling well they now have spent ($ 36 mil new CBA ceiling now + $6 mil in luxury tax) = $42.0 mil .. Exact same amount in fact..
The biggest gain in all this is parity on the ice now as the gap is lessened between top and bottom teams & the any gain to the NHLPA is anything in the form of the systemic issues better then before .. QO, Arbitration, UFA, etc etc that was not a part of the Final offer ..
That is what Saskin's point is and as you can see by the math the deal is no worse .. and he has the actual facts to know better then even we would.
Follow me on that ?
Last edited:
I think the main difference between the two deals is linkage.
If revenues go up substantially = New deal better for players.
If revenues go down substantially = Feb. deal better for players.
If revenues go up substantially = New deal better for players.
If revenues go down substantially = Feb. deal better for players.
I doubt we will know for years from now how well the CBA turns out for the players/owners.
After the 92-93 CBA was settled Goodenow was routinely lambasted in the media for signing a CBA that was horrendously one-sided for the owners. The vast majority were mocking him mercilessly with comments that even Alan Eagleson would have done better for the players.
Bettman was supposedly a genius that was far better then the NHL deserved.
A decade later, and the same columnists were writing about how favourable the old CBA was to the players.
We've heard all this discussion of the players getting ripped off before, and we know how that turned out.
Whatever the CBA looks like when it's signed, be it fair and apparently fantastic for either the NHL/NHLPA... I suspect we'll all end up being incorrect a few years from now.
After the 92-93 CBA was settled Goodenow was routinely lambasted in the media for signing a CBA that was horrendously one-sided for the owners. The vast majority were mocking him mercilessly with comments that even Alan Eagleson would have done better for the players.
Bettman was supposedly a genius that was far better then the NHL deserved.
A decade later, and the same columnists were writing about how favourable the old CBA was to the players.
We've heard all this discussion of the players getting ripped off before, and we know how that turned out.
Whatever the CBA looks like when it's signed, be it fair and apparently fantastic for either the NHL/NHLPA... I suspect we'll all end up being incorrect a few years from now.
kenabnrmal
Registered User
Rand said:
You don't understand though. The loudest at HF have it all figured out. They don't even need the CBA to be drafted or signed to have the absolute definitive answer on who was right, who beat who, and how its all gonna play out.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the ridicule that comes with not joining in on the anti-PA tide whole heartedly has me shaking in my boots.
SuperUnknown
Registered User
The Messenger said:
I don't want to be too harsh, but
- 1st... A linkage deal was offered back in February (with 42M being the cap with bonus)
- 2nd... If the players receive a set % of revenues, who cares about revenue sharing (especially since revenue sharing is detrimental to total revenues if it's local revenues)
- 3rd... The NHLPA can't break even, they're already down at least $900M.
- 4th... When you use numbers, either use all numbers including players costs or not including them (including player costs, the unlinked offer was $45M cap). The linked offer was $42M cap (Well based on revenues, in a linked environment the % is more important than the cap amount)
- 5th... If I had been at the head of the NHLPA, I would have negociated a better deal than what the players will get AND there would have been at least half a season last year. You wouldn't have liked me though, cause I would have talked about a cap since the start and base the negociations off that. I would have shooted for 58-61% of revenues (and if you look at my old "pro-owner" posts from a long time ago you should see that).
Feb Offer v. Now
The 42.5 in Feb included all player costs/benefits without exclusion and "undefined". It also had no floor and no real revenue share. Most importantly, it could not move up over the life of the deal.
The new deal was recently reported to be in the 39.5 range including "defined" player costs/benefits and it includes a floor and significant revenue sharing. It is linked and can move up if revenues move upward (it can also move down). Yes, it is lower but with more safeguards and a good chance that it could reach 50M or more by the end of the likely six year deal if revenue growth continues even at reduced rates to the past decade.
If this is true (and we don't know the final numbers), then I think most peple would take the lower deal with safeguards and the chance to grow upward rather than being in a fixed, static system that offers no rewards for trying to grow revenues from the players perspective.
The 42.5 in Feb included all player costs/benefits without exclusion and "undefined". It also had no floor and no real revenue share. Most importantly, it could not move up over the life of the deal.
The new deal was recently reported to be in the 39.5 range including "defined" player costs/benefits and it includes a floor and significant revenue sharing. It is linked and can move up if revenues move upward (it can also move down). Yes, it is lower but with more safeguards and a good chance that it could reach 50M or more by the end of the likely six year deal if revenue growth continues even at reduced rates to the past decade.
If this is true (and we don't know the final numbers), then I think most peple would take the lower deal with safeguards and the chance to grow upward rather than being in a fixed, static system that offers no rewards for trying to grow revenues from the players perspective.
No, Jeremey Roenick is saying they got boned. He's also saying the fans can kiss his ass. I don't hear any other players saying what he is.Crazy_Ike said:Players are saying they got boned, owners are saying the players got boned, but nyr7andcounting says they didn't get boned, so THAT SETTLES IT!
me2
Go ahead foot
The Messenger said:
1. There is no guarantee the teams will spend the luxury tax money on player salaries. The Penguins might have spent $25m with no luxury tax and might still spend $25m with the luxury tax going into the bank or paying other expenses/debts.
2. Luxury taxes are going to bite. Poorer teams are going to avoid luxury taxes if they can, that is going to depress wages. Let's say the Pengs salary closes to $29m, they get $6m in luxury tax, they are not going want to spend $6m more on players and pay $6m in tax. They are not a rich club, I'd bet Mario and Co would rather bank most of that money. Paying tax is a different mind set than paying wages, and what money poor teams might be prepared to pay wages they might not be prepared to pay as tax. Does Mario want to pay his money to Atlanta or Nashville? I doubt it.
3. While the luxury tax is now suppressing the BOTTOM half of the market (not the top), the cap is suppressing the top half. If the Flyers, TO, Det, Rangers etc are limited to $36m they can't set the salaries as high as the players would like. Arbitration is going to work for the players were they can leverage a wealthy teams lack of desire to fight a player over a million or two. The lower the cap, the harder the rich clubs have to fight. The rich clubs and the poor clubs will be working together to keep wages under control. The NHLPA has missed an opportunity to keep wages up. If the rich clubs could spend $42.5m they would, if they can only spend $36m they will. That is a lot of NHLPA leverage gone in negotiations with RFAs/UFAs.
What do you mean?Smail said:
The reported range is $22-$24 to $36 or whatever the hell it is. That is linked, but it is also the range that the league will play with in 05-06. So it all depends on what revenue number they are using in 05-06 because how much the cap moves after that depends on how much revenues move. Most likely that range is on projected revenues, like 1.6 billion or something. If that range is on 2.1 billion, than the players did get screwed because they might never reach that revenue again in the next 6 years.
Also they didn't lose $1B+, they lost 1/3rd of 76% of their contracts plus 55% of 05 playoff revenue, whatever that is.
Yes, which is why what the range for next year is so important. If the $36-$38M cap is on projected revenues, than that cap will definetly rise and probably $42.5M by the end of the CBA anyway. If not, if that range is on $2.1B in revenues, than the cap will never be as high as even $40M maybe.Spungo said:
nyr7andcounting said:
They are purpotedly basing it on 1.7 (2002-3) so there is room for upward growth...
SuperUnknown
Registered User
nyr7andcounting said:
If they get 54% of revenues, that's what they'll get, no more, no less.
If revenues are $2B, they'll get on average $36M per team.
If revenues are $2.5B, they'll get $45M per team.
I don't see what changes the initial numbers will change, as it'll be % based?
As for what they lost, well it's at least the equivalent of half a year. This year they lost $1B+. Like I said, reported amount they could get through the end and the playoffs was $900M from what I remember (media numbers).
Regardless... Losing this season was catastrophic for them. I ran numbers earlier with actualized amounts to see what they'd need to win to get the money back, and it was sure that they wouldn't get that. Which did bring the question... Why didn't they settle then and cut their loss?
me2
Go ahead foot
Married to Hockey said:
There is also the rumoured 54% linkage in this offer. A nasty little hitch that wasn't in the $42.5m+bonuses offer.
I guess the PA thmselves disagreed with you, since they insisted on a delinked cap before they would even consider the concept.
Where do you get that figure? Levitt has it at $1.996 billion.Married to Hockey said:
{edit: I have heard that 1.7 figure also, but only here.}
Mess
Global Moderator
You should just have said that right from the start so we all knew not to take anything you say seriously. You're going to put your credibility into question by making statements like that .. I am sure you know better then to believe what you just posted though.Smail said:
If you even remotely think you're more qualified in drawing up a new CBA then the NHLPA or the NHLPA committee then it shows you where your head is at or perhaps how young you must be.
This is a message board remember, no one asked to see your resume when you joined, and its intended to share ideas and opinions for FUN ..
Last edited:
The Messenger said:
Certainly no resumes are provided. Were they required, your impressive credentials counting Chicken McNuggets in the thriving hotbed of Kelowna might not have made the cut. We then would not need to have had the displeasure of reading foolish/dishonest post after foolish/dishonest post from you to confirm that you are indeed full of **** and have not a clue about how business works.
For the record, Smail's contributions to this discussion place him in the highest rank of contributing posters here. If only your own dismal record measured up as well as his.
Mess
Global Moderator
Are you sure you understand the concept of linkage fully?me2 said:
When you use the word nasty that gives the impression that its a bad thing ..
Linkage at 54% is what is going to determine what the Hard Cap is set at .. It allows the floor and ceiling to move with league revenue .. This is not a bad thing in fact is has the benefit of being a real good thing for the players while always protecting the owners.
If the sport grows then the players salaries will rise with the cap.. If the sport shrinks then the sport remains healthy as the owners can continue to make a profit.
The 54% partnership to the players means that they are getting their share of the business .. For every $1 spent on Hockey, the players get 54 cents at all levels in this CBA ..
The only possible nasty thing about linkage is that it involves trust in the figures presented and if that issue can be controlled and verified than the NHLPA feels comfortable in the accuracy then the issue is moot to a point and if the proper penalties exists that police the system then we all should be fine.
What people seem to forget is that the 42.5% was optional .. ZERO teams were required to spend that amount .. Good businessmen and teams would have set their budgets based on expected revenue and internally only spent a certain percentage of it on player salaries keep enough back to pay other bills and show a profit at year end..
Bottom line: Depending on what revenues were you could have seen all 30 teams spend only an average of $30 mil/team in the $42.5 mil FINAL offer and there would be nothing the NHLPA could do about it .. To be honest .. Minimum wage at 300 K times X 23 players per team is all each team was REQUIRED TO PAY on player Salaries under that FINAL OFFER ..
Linkage at 54% prevents that from EVERY happening and the players always receiving their fair share.
- Status
