And Now they Get Down to Business

[Chayos]

January 2006.... or maybe 2007...

I actually hope it is jan 2007 then the players will have flushed about $2.8 billion dollars down teh crapper.

I wonder if the player realize that the owners are still getting revenue from Mercahndising. Sure it probably droped by half, but that would still be $400 million dollars.

 

[Mess]

I actually hope it is jan 2007 then the players will have flushed about $2.8 billion dollars down teh crapper.

I wonder if the player realize that the owners are still getting revenue from Mercahndising. Sure it probably droped by half, but that would still be $400 million dollars.

What ??

Are you serious .. The total Revenue Pie was reported by the Levitt report was 2.1 billion ..

and you believe that Merchandise in lockout times when sales are cut in 1/2 that is will still nearly make up just about 1/4 of the total revenue dollars ..

Then why is anyone playing hockey at all .. Just hire people to sell hats and jersey's .. ??

 

[Taranis_24]

In September Linkage was not even a part of the offer it was all about a Hard Cap .. Now all of a sudden linkage is in, and vital ..

Linkage is like making the NHL players into commission sales people .. No other sport do you see that .. Players agree to a contract based on a hard amount .. Not a contract that can go up and down based on how much Revenue the owners make ..

Linkage will may be just that a Red Herring to side track the players .. If it is removed from the final CBA, the NHL has gotten the players to think they won on the big clause, as long as the min /max Hard Cap range is in the deal ..

You understand that with linkage the salaries can actually rise? Maybe not right away because of the damage this lockout has done. If, and it's a small if, the revenues increase with this system the salaries will increase as well. It may take a couple of years but if the league can rebound and really turn this around with a better product then the players will benefit from this as well.

 

[ti-vite]

- The owners learned something from the MLB’s last labour stoppage and that is this. Always give the other side an option that is far more detestable than the option you want. Ever wonder why suddenly linkage is the big deal for the owners. It reminds of the Minnesota contraction talk that dominated the last labour talks in MLB. Linkage is ridiculous concept for the NHL, revenues just aren’t high enough or certain enough for any sane hockey player to agree to it. So if your an owner you press this point over and over until a restrictive cap of some kind suddenly seems palatable.

Hehe, like suddenly a week ago players indicating a cap would be OK, but not linkage. I think Goodenow pulled on his choke chain to put everyone in line.

But you are right, it seems to be working.

 

[SENSible1*]

Now you are questioning the integrity of TSN and its reporting .. Brian Burke and Bob MacKenzie have been following this closely and are you saying the whole panel is wrong ???

I am just repeating what they said .. but I also do not ever remember linkage when the process started .. Now the NHLPA talks about 3 caps in the NHL system and when it started we all just talked about a Salary Hard Cap verses Soft Cap luxury tax and Linkage has not connection to a Soft Cap .. that is simply a fine or penalty for exceeding a propose cap figure ..

No, I'm stating that Miller got his facts mixed up and in the process misinformed the public on this issue. I doubt it was intentional. He was the only one to make this mistake.

The NHL has been consistent from day one on the need for a link between salaries and revenue on an on-going basis.

 

[ti-vite]

Now you are questioning the integrity of TSN and its reporting .. Brian Burke and Bob MacKenzie have been following this closely and are you saying the whole panel is wrong ???

I am just repeating what they said .. but I also do not ever remember linkage when the process started .. Now the NHLPA talks about 3 caps in the NHL system and when it started we all just talked about a Salary Hard Cap verses Soft Cap luxury tax and Linkage has not connection to a Soft Cap .. that is simply a fine or penalty for exceeding a propose cap figure ..

You are again wrong.

The 54% of revenue is by definition LINKAGE. The cap (% of revenu) is another word for LINKAGE. Revenu gooes up, more money to payers, revenu goes down, less money to players. The only dynamic is the amount of money, but the percentage would remain the same.

Its been there since the begining.

 

[tantalum]

From the JUNE 28 2004 mailbag.

"Bill Daly: We have stated for some time that we are open to any number of solutions to address the economic issues that face the League. We have also been consistent in stating that we seek a system that achieves "cost certainty," which we define as a system that provides for a rational and enforceable relationship between revenues and player salaries."

From a later mailbag:

A Performance-Based Salary System:Under this system, the League proposed to negotiate an agreed-upon overall percentage of League-wide revenues that would be paid as a player compensation....

A Payroll Range with Cash Recapture system, in which teams would spend within a negotiated range of payrolls. As part of this system, the League would provide that overall player costs (including player salaries, bonuses, and benefits) would equal a negotiated percentage of League-wide revenues (the "Players' Share").

Of the six orginial concepts atleast two were discussed to have explicit linkage. Not all were but the NHLPA failed to frame a proposal based on any of the proposed systems the NHL felt might work. So the NHL chose the one that was had the least chance of failing to negotiate on.

From CBC in September:
"Bettman is looking for an agreement that would see a 60-40 split of player expenditures and revenue that is more in line with the three other major North American sports leagues – the NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball."

From USA Today in September:
The league says "cost certainty" in a new labor agreement is crucial to the league's survival. It proposed six frameworks, including salary slotting or having the league negotiate directly with players' agents. The proposals would give players more than 50% of revenues and would lower the league average salary from $1.8 million to $1.3 million.

From Trevor Linden in September:
"At some point, the owners have to realize the Players will never accept a salary cap or a system linking payroll to league revenues."

From TSN in AUGUST:
So the league is adamant it wants a new system that guarantees a link between costs and revenues.

Sure the term linkage wasn't commonly thrown around until later but it was clear to all involved that that was exactly what the NHL wanted from day 1 and they expressed that. If they say they want a 60:40 split or so on revenues then obviously that means decreasing numbers on revenues means decreasing salaries and more revenue means bigger salaries. Miller quite simply was wrong.
USA Today

CBC

Linden

TSN

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Then why is anyone playing hockey at all .. Just hire people to sell hats and jersey's .. ??

isnt that what the owners are doing now?

dr

 

[chara]

Goodenow has Bettman on speed dial. He hasn't made an offer since December while the owners have countered with 3. But that's how he operates and that's how he trained the player agents.

Hold out as long as you can and let the other side come back to your position. He has to bend. That being said, the deal could better for them same next year if 6 'cap-happy' teams fold. If this is true, the NHLPA could care less if teams fold. Lose some jobs but avoid a hard cap...

 

[Sam I Am]

I’ve always maintained that this thing gets settled Jan 2006, however that being said the media is way off mark declaring the season dead and done.

The truth is the negotiating has never really begun and if I’m a betting man I would say that this weekend will see the first significant movement since the lockout began.

Beyond the media doom and gloom there are some important points to remember;

-This is a high priced game of chicken, the reason this lockout has been such a hard fight is that this is a hard CBA to settle on. The league has never had a workable system that benefits both sides. As such there is a lot to lose and a lot to gain in these negotiations. Neither side can afford to make mistakes in these deals, neither can afford to give away ground and both sides no the first to blink loses. I guarantee both sides have better offers in their pocket, the problem is both sides want to see the others best offer first. This weekend maybe someone blinks.

- The owners learned something from the MLB’s last labour stoppage and that is this. Always give the other side an option that is far more detestable than the option you want. Ever wonder why suddenly linkage is the big deal for the owners. It reminds of the Minnesota contraction talk that dominated the last labour talks in MLB. Linkage is ridiculous concept for the NHL, revenues just aren’t high enough or certain enough for any sane hockey player to agree to it. So if your an owner you press this point over and over until a restrictive cap of some kind suddenly seems palatable.

- Remember the last go around, nothing was settled until AFTER the season was declared dead. Anyone remember the famous Elston cartoon with a simple coffin inscribed NHL. The next day was the breakthrough and you had the Elston cartoon with the hockey glove punching through the coffin. Today’s press conferences might just be the last chest pumping, feather dance before the mating season.

-Pressure and stress creates deals. Don’t for a second believe that the players, owners, Gary Bettman or Bob Goodenow want this season cancelled. Bettman and the league didn’t set a Jan deadline like it did in the last lockout because they wanted the players feet in the boiling water as long as is humanely possible. There’s a good chance that the season will be cancelled but only because the gulf is too wide to be carried in one deadline.

That’s why it’s this weekend or January 2006.

Well said.

I agree that linkage is a red herring. All the owners need is a hard cap based on an analysis of their present situation coupled with reasonable predictions with regards to the next five to six years. This will halt the spiralling payrolls we've seen over the last decade and provides the owners with the much talked about "cost certainty".

The amount of the cap should not decline during the term of the CBA. If revenues go down, that's tough luck for the owners--they're running the business, they're responsible for keeping revenues up. Hockey players play hockey...businesmen do business. Hockey players bear the risk of not performing on the ice (i.e. being cut, sent down to the minors, not having contracts renewed...) Owners bear the risk of their failure to put warm bodies ton the seats. Such is natural order of things.

Forget the profit-sharing. This is perhaps the stupidest idea in the veritable sea of idiocy we've been subjected to over the last few months. If you want an idea of how hard it is to define profits--let alone quantify them--I refer you to Art Buchwald vs. Paramount Studios. This U.S. case turned on Paramount's claim that its blockbuster hit "Coming to America" did not realize any "net profits" as described in its profit-sharing agreement with the movie's writers. Slog through this mess and tell me you still want go down the road of profit-sharing.