Rumored Current CBA vs. February Offer

[Morbo]

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.

You really need to grow up.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

I think you are still missing the point.

With linkage, it does not really matter what the projection is. The share of revenues to go to the players is 54%. To the extent that there is a variation from that level, that is addressed either by the escrow account (in the event of a shortfall) or by the owners making a supplemental payment (if there is an overage).

From what has been reported I have never felt that escrow accounts and the 54% number were going to play a huge part in the current deal.

As far as I can tell the floor is 51% and the cap is 57%. Those are the only two numbers linked to revenues, they move as revenues move and it's designed so that the league as a whole will be paying out about 54% of revenues. If every team spent to the cap, then it's 57%. If every team spent to the floor it's 51%. Neither are likely to happen, but no matter what happens the players get 51-57%. I don't believe that this deal is 54% going to the players no matter what. Which is why the projected revenue for next year, and what 24-36 or whatever is based on, would be important.

 

[RangerBoy]

According Larry Brooks,here was the February cap

The Post has learned that the league's offer of a $42.5M team ceiling — that would have included a 50-percent tax beginning at $36M — featured the following elements that the NHL did not release to the public when it plastered the proposal on its various web sites:

All annual individual signing bonuses contained in contracts.

All personal achievement bonus payouts.

All contract buyouts.

All annual signing bonuses for players in Entry Level System.

All players on Injured Reserve.

All players in minor leagues earning over $75,000.

As such, the PA computes the actual NHL-roster cap number as approximately $39M per team — if not less — under the last proposal

http://www.nypost.com/sports/41703.htm

Contract buyouts not counting against the cap is one detail which has reportedly changed

 

[tantalum]

Are you sure you understand the concept of linkage fully?

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..

Holy **** you actually get it after being so, well, dense the entire time. Though you are trying to weasel out of it by claiming it as a victory for the union . It took what 8 months? 8 months for you to FINALLY admit that what the owners were offering all along was in fact fair to the players.

Yeah this may end up being better for the players than a unlinked $42.5 mil but the thing is they could have had it linked near that amount at anytime through this whole thing and they could have had profit sharing! But it isn't going to better this CBA other than having 30 secure franchises and secure jobs. They pissed away $1 billion in salary all to basically get what they could have received without missing a game. They will not receive that $1 billion back in this deal over any other deal offered. The unlinked offer was simply calling Goodenow's bluff that he would take a cap without linkage. Funny how as soon as the linkage was off the table the PA wanted it back on (though only in one direction).

 

[Mess]

Contract buyouts not counting against the cap is one detail which has reportedly changed

With the qualifier added being that buyouts don't count only on existing current contracts and the NHL is offering a 1 time buyout special if you prefer that didn't exist in the Final offer package..

Buyouts after that point I believe will most definitely count towards a CAP figure.

 

[RangerBoy]

With the qualifier added being that buyouts don't count only on existing current contracts and the NHL is offering a 1 time buyout special if you prefer that didn't exist in the Final offer package..

Buyouts after that point I believe will most definitely count towards a CAP figure.

As Larry Brooks wrote last week "over a defined period this summer".Unlimited buyouts per team

This deal contains a floor which the deal in February did not

 

[GSC2k2*]

Because previously the owners hadn't been willing to discuss their revenues. Months ago when the NHL opened the books to the PA, the players union found unreported revenues of a few teams which prompted the NHL to shun them from further analyzing other teams' revenues. Put yourself in their position...it's hard to trust someone who shuns you from examining their books and lies about their revenues through the Levitt report. Would you be open to linkage initially?

Well, that is just plain false and you know it.

THe NHL has made public offers to the PA throughout the lockout to review the books, hire their own auditors, retain joint auditors as part of one of their offers, and actually pleaded to have them come to the table. Levitt also invited them.

It is also well known that the reports of unreported revenues (I believe the PA said $50 million) was a bunch of hooey about things that no accountant in his right mind would count as hockey revenue.

Finally, and most importantly, as it has been conclusively shown in another thread, Goodenow himself came on the radio shortly after cancellation and CONFIRMED that he was comfortable with the numbers provided by the league and was comfortable he knew of the state of the league's finances. The words came out of his own mouth on WFAN.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Oh hell i am totally confused now. For months on end i heard how horrible linkage would be for players. Now that it looks like linkage it is, I am hearing how great linkage could be for players. Huh pretty much exactly what proowner posters said from teh beginning, linkage is the fairest way to handle this.

I guess the pro-player posters were just taking a negotiating position with the rest of us ...

 

[LPHabsFan]

I guess the pro-player posters were just taking a negotiating position with the rest of us ...

To put it simply, linkage benefits the owners in the short run but the players in the long run.

 

[tantalum]

Contract buyouts not counting against the cap is one detail which has reportedly changed

Maybe maybe not. If I had to guess the teams may receive a "get out of jail free card" this one time and this one time only to get things in line with a cap system. Buyouts occuring during the term of the CBA I would have to imagine would indeed count towards the cap in some manner (i.e. any buyouts occurring NEXT summer or the years after).

 

[kdb209]

Many of those items could very well be in this new deal again now ..Although I don't think you are 100% on all the facts ie. Enough Revenue sharing which has been a tough sell to the owners all along.

From the Leagues Feb 2 Proposal:

-- Enhanced and meaningful revenue sharing pursuant to which all 30 Clubs (assuming an appropriate level of business performance within their respective markets) would be provided the ability to afford a League-representative Team Payroll, which would be established at a point within the prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range.

The "prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range" would have been $29.8M to $40M in the first year, implying sufficent revenue sharing to allow all teams to reach the $30M floor.

 

[LPHabsFan]

From the Leagues Feb 2 Proposal:


The "prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range" would have been $29.8M to $40M in the first year, implying sufficent revenue sharing to allow all teams to reach the $30M floor.

There is no floor in that Feb 2nd proposal. And the revenue sharing only goes as far as letting the other teams stay afloat, no more, no less.

 

[Mess]

From the Leagues Feb 2 Proposal:


The "prescribed Floating Team Payroll Range" would have been $29.8M to $40M in the first year, implying sufficent revenue sharing to allow all teams to reach the $30M floor.

I am aware of that .. but at the time Revenue Sharing model to accomplish that had not yet been resolved .. The NHL only ever talked about sharing Playoff revenue .

Various additional Revenue sharing has been attempted by Bettman by personal visits to Toronto and Philly and all this happened post cancellation ..

The league would have had to come up with something , but according to Brian Burke revenue sharing is not a CBA requirement so I am guessing the Owners would have come up with a plan at a BOG in the future had the NHLPA accepted it.

Remember also their was a time in one of these NHL proposal that Revenue Sharing began in year 1 and declined to zero in year 6 of the CBA .. No sure but I think that was a part of the Final Offer ..

 

[nyr7andcounting]

There is no floor in that Feb 2nd proposal. And the revenue sharing only goes as far as letting the other teams stay afloat, no more, no less.

I believe $29.8M was the floor...it was a linkage offer so by definition there had to be a floor.

 

[txomisc]

To put it simply, linkage benefits the owners in the short run but the players in the long run.

Nah linkage benefits the owners in the short run and BOTH parties in the long run.

 

[LPHabsFan]

Nah linkage benefits the owners in the short run and BOTH parties in the long run.

Not really because in a linkage, the ceiling would increase as the revenues grow. In a cap, the ceiling would stay the same while revenues increase meaning same money for players while more profit for owner.

 

[SuperUnknown]

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.

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 ..

Well I hate to say it, but time and time again I came on here and mentioned how the NHLPA should maneuver to get the best deal they could. Of course the pro-PA people shot me down everytime since it wasn't an unlinked high cap offer.

I've been advocating since before the start of the lockout that in the NHL's position, a linked cap might be the better solution, a form of partnership where both parties will want to grow the game (as both profit from it). I've been pointing out that as the smaller league, with highest fixed costs, the best they could do right now was to aim for the amount of revenues the other player associations got.

I outlined strategies for the PA to get the most yet settle the CBA and get back to the game. I've been calling out the NHLPA's leadership incompetence and bad negociation tactics since the start.

The art of negociation is to get everything the other party is willing to offer, and what that party has to offer changes with time. If the owners could have gotten a linked cap from the start, don't you think they might have been willing to offer more for a quick settlement, winning what was at the start the "key" victory?

I'm not saying that at this moment in time, the NHLPA isn't salvaging all they can and getting the most out of the owners, I'm saying that they should have done so much earlier, especially with their clients $1B at stake.

What I can't understand is why the "pro-players" are happy playing chearleaders instead of being critic over the NHLPA's leadership. Why can't they admit the NHLPA's leadership blew it?

I'm just bitter that it's ending like this for the players, because they do not deserve it. They should have got a better deal and the fans should have gotten hockey. As for the owners, well I knew that sooner or later they'd get their framework, as they were in an almost nothing to lose position.

Oh well...

 

[SuperUnknown]

You answered your own question. If the initial range is based on $2B, than the cap will go down after year 1 and might never get back to $36-$38M. If the reported range is on projected revenues of $1.7B, as somebody here said, than it will most likely go up over the next 6 years. Odds are it's based off of a projection, like 1.7B, but we don't know for sure.

I still don't understand how the projected revenues have anything to do with it.

Let's say they negociate 54% of revenues. Then they project $1.7B. True revenues are $1.6B. The next year, the cap will be set so players receive $864M. Let's say they project $2.0B. True revenues are $1.6B. Next year, cap is set so players receive $864M. In other words the cap should be the same in both situations regardless of the base year.

So what's the difference???

 

[me2]

There is no floor in that Feb 2nd proposal. And the revenue sharing only goes as far as letting the other teams stay afloat, no more, no less.

And the revenue sharing under the current deal does the same, only with the floor at $22m instead of $30m.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Not really because in a linkage, the ceiling would increase as the revenues grow. In a cap, the ceiling would stay the same while revenues increase meaning same money for players while more profit for owner.

If you look at your own post, your statement was not a comparative one. It was a statement about linkage (benefits owners in the short run, players inthe long run). Please read your own post:

To put it simply, linkage benefits the owners in the short run but the players in the long run.

The above poster is correct. Linkage benefits both parties. As revenues increase, both parties' dollars increase at a defined rate.

 

[CGG]

Ok so then why did the NHLPA fight tooth and nails to avoid linkage and even come out and decide theyd accept a hard cap but only one without linkage? To put it another way, they were much more willing to accept a nonlinkage hardcap system than they were to accept a linkage hardcap system.

Linkage means two different things:

(1) The owners want the players to get EXACTLY 54%. This means escrow accounts, a players giving back a portion of their already-reduced contracts if actual revenues come in lower than projected. Players didn't like this plan, owners love it.

(2) Link the salary cap and floors to revenues. For example, if revenues go up 10%, the salary cap goes up 10% the following year. No guarantees that salaries will have a corresponding increase of 10%. That is the "linkage" that the players wanted. When they agreed to a cap, they eventually offered $49 million, but that number would go up as revenues increased.

They were never willing to accept an "unlinked" hardcap system that would keep the salary cap at the exact same level year-in, year-out. The players got crucified for this because it was "one way linkage", however, after 2005-06, the base year in their proposal, why in the hell should revenues ever go down again?

The owners last Feb offer was $42.5 million unlinked that never would have changed over the 6 years of the CBA. Chances are the current CBA will grow to above $42.5 million by the end of the contract.

In all the rumours of the current CBA, there's no mention of escrow accounts or 54% guarantees that Jacobs ranted about. It looks like they are basing it on the players' system of linking the cap and floor amounts only.

 

[CGG]

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.

You thought wrong. Everyone knows the "save the season" campaign never got off the ground because they couldn't agree on all the little issues like QO's and arbitration, and therefore never even talked about numbers. They might have been using the players' framework as a start, but obviously the owners were demanding changing that entire framework to their QO's, their ideas for arbitration, their disappearing revenue sharing, etc. Saskin even said that very bluntly, although apparently whatever he says is some kind of vicious lie?

Therefore you can't claim the deal the PA could have taken in Feb is the same as the deal now with a lower cap. Completely false.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

You thought wrong. Everyone knows the "save the season" campaign never got off the ground because they couldn't agree on all the little issues like QO's and arbitration, and therefore never even talked about numbers. They might have been using the players' framework as a start, but obviously the owners were demanding changing that entire framework to their QO's, their ideas for arbitration, their disappearing revenue sharing, etc. Saskin even said that very bluntly, although apparently whatever he says is some kind of vicious lie?

Therefore you can't claim the deal the PA could have taken in Feb is the same as the deal now with a lower cap. Completely false.

You are correct that the two sides could not agree on anything so the NHL gave in (their only display of weakness) and said they would go with the players' framework with a $42.5M cap PLUS expenses. Again, Goodenow, having his bluff called, decided the framework put forward by the NHLPA was not really something he would sign off on and turned tail. Then he had the balls to try and blame it on the league for the cancellation. The league gave in and went for middle ground (players terms, owners number) and Goodenow wanted more. He wanted a total victory and complete compitulation on the league's part. It's all there in his press conference after the fact. He dodges question after question because he knows he screwed up and has to deflect the blame.

Hey, if it lets you sleep at night go a head and believe that the players are getting a better deal now than they would have been in February. In February they would have been working off their framework, their conditions, with last year's contracts being honored and with a higher cap number. Now they are working under the NHL's framework, with a cap, with linkage, with a rollback, and without last year's contracts being honored. You may wish to believe that its a better deal, but you would be dead wrong. The players say it themselves. How hard is it to admit that the best deal was left on the table months ago? But hey, if you're looking for that good night's sleep, do what you have to do there big fella. I won't lose any sleep over it.

 

[gerbilanium]

The players themselves are saying they are getting a far crappier deal than February. Roenick has said it, Brisebois has said it. People who know the details far more than any guesses we can make about the details. What else is there to debate.

 

[Egil]

The best NHL offer wasn't the one made at the end of the process, but the linked deal with profit sharing (a couple weeks earlier). I have heard NOTHING about profit sharing being in this deal, and if it is not in the deal, then the PA most definately turned down the best deal they were going to get.