Do you think there may already be a deal in principle?

[Member 23807]

I read this quote :

"We completed three days of meetings on competition and economic issues with the league," players' association senior director Ted Saskin said. "An additional three days of CBA discussions have been scheduled next week, with the first two days dedicated to reviewing economic and financial reporting issues."

Now the reason for my thinking that a deal in principle may already exist is that them going over the Levitt report, looking at the financial reporting issues tells me that they've agreed on a linkage type cba and possibly even the ranges and thresholds for luxury tax and are now finalizing the reporting aspects of the revenues, what constitutes a revenue etc etc.

Or...perhaps they are just doing their due diligence and reviewing these issues now so that it doesn't become an issue later once they do agreement on numbers.

Any thoughts?

PJStyles

Click to read more...

 

[Levitate]

i think it's more likely they're trying to straighten out the whole revenues thing before proceeding with how to apply it in a CBA...i doubt they've agreed on numbers for a cap or anything right now

 

[nyrmessier011]

I read this quote :

"We completed three days of meetings on competition and economic issues with the league," players' association senior director Ted Saskin said. "An additional three days of CBA discussions have been scheduled next week, with the first two days dedicated to reviewing economic and financial reporting issues."

Now the reason for my thinking that a deal in principle may already exist is that them going over the Levitt report, looking at the financial reporting issues tells me that they've agreed on a linkage type cba and possibly even the ranges and thresholds for luxury tax and are now finalizing the reporting aspects of the revenues, what constitutes a revenue etc etc.

Or...perhaps they are just doing their due diligence and reviewing these issues now so that it doesn't become an issue later once they do agreement on numbers.

Any thoughts?

PJStyles

\


I think there ironing out how revenues are to be counted before they negotiate a number. Both sides want to know exactly how revenues are portrayed so they know what number to go for. There's more of a chance that the sky turns green tonight then a deal is done right now.

 

[Larionov]

An agreement in principle sounds overly optimistic, but one thing is clear -- the 'PA has essentially rolled over on the issue of linkage. They maintained for months/years that they didn't trust the NHL's figures, would never do a deal off them, etc. etc., yet this news makes it clear that they will, in fact, do a deal based on those figures.

Remember way back in September when the NHL said that they and the union "weren't even speaking the same language" on a deal? The good news is that they are finally speaking the same language.

 

[Motown Beatdown]

An agreement in principle sounds overly optimistic, but one thing is clear -- the 'PA has essentially rolled over on the issue of linkage. They maintained for months/years that they didn't trust the NHL's figures, would never do a deal off them, etc. etc., yet this news makes it clear that they will, in fact, do a deal based on those figures.

Remember way back in September when the NHL said that they and the union "weren't even speaking the same language" on a deal? The good news is that they are finally speaking the same language.

Yeah, i think the PA finally realized they can make more money with linkage than without it. I support the PA most of the time and maybe it's a naive approach but if these guys paycheck depends on revenue we'll see better hockey. The issue of trust has always been an issue IMO but sometimes you have to forgive and forget about past transgression.

 

[Hire Sather]

Argh, optomism sparked when I saw the title, only to find a load of BS.

 

[mooseOAK*]

This is a momentous occasion, this is the first quote from Saskin that I can remember where he isn't complaining that the NHL is just presenting the same proposal or a worse one. I was beginning to think that he was a Chatty Cathy doll where you push a button and it says the same thing repeatedly.

 

[CGG]

An agreement in principle sounds overly optimistic, but one thing is clear -- the 'PA has essentially rolled over on the issue of linkage. They maintained for months/years that they didn't trust the NHL's figures, would never do a deal off them, etc. etc., yet this news makes it clear that they will, in fact, do a deal based on those figures.

Remember way back in September when the NHL said that they and the union "weren't even speaking the same language" on a deal? The good news is that they are finally speaking the same language.

I agree with you somewhat, but it depends on your idea of linkage. If the owners are still fixated on exactly 54%, I don't think a deal is on the horizon. The players have essentially given in to linkage, but just so far as having a max and a min that are linked to revenue, say 48% to 61%, so that there's still a bit of leeway and a little bit of market forces dictating what the teams will pay.

If all goes well and revenues rise and all teams were healthy, they might end up paying close to 60% in salaries, whereas under the 54% deal, players would have to give back a chunk of their paycheques. I think the union will accept the "linkage" concept, so long as there's still some flexibility within it.

 

[marcel snapshot]

If the PA has a number that it thinks might be workable to the League, they'd probably want to try to have as many procedural/reporting type issues worked out before unveiling that number -- otherwise they run the risk of having that number whittled even lower via procedural/reporting/implementation provisions.

 

[ti-vite]

Linden and Gartner seem to be at these meetings (excluded for a while in february I think...), and these guys want a deal. That or the masses have spoken: 'GET A DEAL DONE'



Damn, now I'm optimistic again. Wheres that Healy-McCabe thread...



ahh much better.

 

[Morbo]

This is a momentous occasion, this is the first quote from Saskin that I can remember where he isn't complaining that the NHL is just presenting the same proposal or a worse one. I was beginning to think that he was a Chatty Cathy doll where you push a button and it says the same thing repeatedly.

I think you mean a Chatty Betty doll.

 

[Levitate]

They maintained for months/years that they didn't trust the NHL's figures, would never do a deal off them, etc. etc., yet this news makes it clear that they will, in fact, do a deal based on those figures.

uhh...no? this news makes it clear that they are trying to define what those figures are...if this made it clear that they were going to make a deal based off of the NHLs figures, then, well, this wouldn't even be news, because we wouldn't be hearing about how they're talking about the revenues and all...there would be no need because the NHLPA would have agreed to work with those numbers.

i'm sorry if i didn't make myself very clear

but if these guys paycheck depends on revenue we'll see better hockey.

i doubt it. it's going to take league action to get rid of some of the problems in hockey (clutching and grabbing, etc) the players themselves aren't going to change that even with linkage. you think the lower tier players who are barely in the NHL because they can hook and grab are going to stop doing that and lose their place because they suddenly have linkage?

i don't think this will change the way the players play

 

[free0717]

What it shows is the players are going to accept a cap with linkage to revenues.
Before they proceed, they want to establish what is revenues and what constitutes payroll. I doubt they have any agreement in principal.

 

[txomisc]

I agree with you somewhat, but it depends on your idea of linkage. If the owners are still fixated on exactly 54%, I don't think a deal is on the horizon. The players have essentially given in to linkage, but just so far as having a max and a min that are linked to revenue, say 48% to 61%, so that there's still a bit of leeway and a little bit of market forces dictating what the teams will pay.

If all goes well and revenues rise and all teams were healthy, they might end up paying close to 60% in salaries, whereas under the 54% deal, players would have to give back a chunk of their paycheques. I think the union will accept the "linkage" concept, so long as there's still some flexibility within it.

How about a system where linkage is initially 54% but rises as revenue hits certain levels. Say its set at 54% (as its absolute lowest) at 2.1 billion. If revenue hits 2.3 billion it could go up to 55% or something. That way players would benefit two fold from increased revenues. The higher the revenue the higher the percentage owners can afford. If revenues went back down, the percentage could drop back down along with it, not to go any lower than 54%

 

[txomisc]

What it shows is the players are going to accept a cap with linkage to revenues.
Before they proceed, they want to establish what is revenues and what constitutes payroll. I doubt they have any agreement in principal.

I seriously doubt it as well. If it is all about establishing what revenue and payroll is, that crap should have been taken care of months ago...hell years ago

 

[kdb209]

Originally Posted by gc2005
I agree with you somewhat, but it depends on your idea of linkage. If the owners are still fixated on exactly 54%, I don't think a deal is on the horizon. The players have essentially given in to linkage, but just so far as having a max and a min that are linked to revenue, say 48% to 61%, so that there's still a bit of leeway and a little bit of market forces dictating what the teams will pay.

If all goes well and revenues rise and all teams were healthy, they might end up paying close to 60% in salaries, whereas under the 54% deal, players would have to give back a chunk of their paycheques. I think the union will accept the "linkage" concept, so long as there's still some flexibility within it.

How about a system where linkage is initially 54% but rises as revenue hits certain levels. Say its set at 54% (as its absolute lowest) at 2.1 billion. If revenue hits 2.3 billion it could go up to 55% or something. That way players would benefit two fold from increased revenues. The higher the revenue the higher the percentage owners can afford. If revenues went back down, the percentage could drop back down along with it, not to go any lower than 54%

That is effectively what the league offered with their Feb 2, 53-55% linkage w/escrow offer through profit sharing.

11. PROFIT SHARING

-- The parties agree that the objective of the new CBA is to make the National Hockey League, as a whole, healthy and profitable through the establishment of an economic partnership with its Players.

-- Profit Sharing with the Players on a 50 (Players)/50 (Clubs) basis over and above a League-wide profit threshold to be negotiated.

Higher revenues would yield an increase in the linked cap (54%) and would also increase the owners 46%, so assuming no increase in their other fixed non-player costs, an additional 50% of increases in revenues (above some threshold) would go into the players pockets - increasing their share above the 54%.

Now this will entail negotiations with the PA to define both revenues and costs so there is a common agreed upon definition of profit.

 

[FlyersFan10*]

I think that the frame work for a deal is in place. Each side knows what each side wants and I think that there has been a general agreement of what the deal needs. I just think the big problem right now is the number crunching and the ability to work the deal to show that both sides saved face during this rediculous work stoppage.

 

[mr gib]

i think it's more likely they're trying to straighten out the whole revenues thing before proceeding with how to apply it in a CBA...i doubt they've agreed on numbers for a cap or anything right now

ya i guess if they're talking about the levitt report they have some ground to cover - i guess the league has come to terms with disclosing some financial info

 

[kingsfan]

i doubt it. it's going to take league action to get rid of some of the problems in hockey (clutching and grabbing, etc) the players themselves aren't going to change that even with linkage. you think the lower tier players who are barely in the NHL because they can hook and grab are going to stop doing that and lose their place because they suddenly have linkage?

i don't think this will change the way the players play

It may not change the way the players play, but if the NHLPA body gets paid based on revenues, and if a higher tempo game translates to more revenue, you can bet the NHLPA won't be objecting to a bunch of NHL ideas, such as narrowing the goalie pads.

 

[thinkwild]

I wouldn't think that they are dicussing the Levitt report. As we learned, the PA was already in negotiations during the period Bettman said there were no negotiations. We know there was a Project Blue Fin where they were trying to come to terms with defining the revenues associated with owning a pro hockey team. Bettman shut it down, hired Levitt on the sly, and released his report to the media, not to the players.

The players were also in these negotiations the week before the season was cancelled. Remember Daly saying he doesn't know why the players want to go over these numbers. When he did release some figures for revenue sharing modelling, the PA leaked that it revealed some very interesting things, such as that Edmonton was a profitable franchise who wouldnt qualify to receive revenue sharing, and other than Ottawa, all the Canadian teams were doing well.

The players proposal to save the season included a formula for linking the cap rates to revenues. Im not sure this is anything new now. The owners could have had this to save the season if they wanted.

I don't think profit sharing is the same as raising the percentage of revenue sharing. Revenues are hard enough to pin down, let alone profits. Expecially when for many owners, maximizing profits isnt a goal, such as the Leafs where the pension fund is solely after capital gain.

Hard to believe there is a deal in principle for modelling a salary management sytem

 

[not quite yoda]

I would love to see what is making you guys so optimistic that the PA has caved on linkage. I see no mention of this from the Burkes of this world.

All I see is that they are trying to agree on what past revenues may have been.

 

[FlyersGuy69]

What it shows is the players are going to accept a cap with linkage to revenues.
Before they proceed, they want to establish what is revenues and what constitutes payroll. I doubt they have any agreement in principal.

I agree.

BTW, nice avatar!

 

[Isles72]

I still believe at the end of the day it'll be a linkage deal based on 03-04's rev's as a base for a fixed cap .If rev's go up during the 5 year CBA , then the fixed cap goes up .If rev's go down , the cap remains at the initial offering of 03-o4 's numbers .

 

[Mighty Duck]

Doesn't matter whether you use hard/soft cap or linkage, or even both. If a fair revenue sharing system is not put in place, the league is still no better off, as the rich teams get richer, and the poor teams will fold. Base on 2003/04 season of 2.3 billion in revenue, using a 54% linkage or a 41 million cap, how can teams like Florida and Nashville still servive. Look at Tampa, the only time fans showed up was in the playoffs. Now it will be back to regular season play, and reality. Just because Tampa wins a cup once, does not make them a financial success. For the NHL to get a deal done, they have to have something to trade, and the only bone which could thrown is UFA at a much younger age. Does this remind you of the NFL CBA talks, how the NFL threatened decertifying to get their way. Some people don't think it is a big deal, but tell this to a player who is not happy for the team he is locked into for 10 or 11 years. Tell that to a player who is stuck in their teams minors because he is not good enough to crack the Detroit line up because they just signed another free agent. So, he will stay in the minors until he can be eligible for waivers. Give the players UFA after their 1st contract has expired, and waiver eligibility after 1st contract expires. If a team cannot decide after they have had a player in their system for 3 years, then let him go, or be obligated to make him happy financially. Answer to a question: If a team signs a player right after they draft him, which would make that player eligible for UFA at a younger age, that is their fault. Also if a team does not sign a player before the 2 year deadline, he becomes a UFA. Give the players some right if you want to lowers salaries.

 

[King_Brown]

I wouldn't think that they are dicussing the Levitt report. As we learned, the PA was already in negotiations during the period Bettman said there were no negotiations. We know there was a Project Blue Fin where they were trying to come to terms with defining the revenues associated with owning a pro hockey team. Bettman shut it down, hired Levitt on the sly, and released his report to the media, not to the players.

The players were also in these negotiations the week before the season was cancelled. Remember Daly saying he doesn't know why the players want to go over these numbers. When he did release some figures for revenue sharing modelling, the PA leaked that it revealed some very interesting things, such as that Edmonton was a profitable franchise who wouldnt qualify to receive revenue sharing, and other than Ottawa, all the Canadian teams were doing well.

The players proposal to save the season included a formula for linking the cap rates to revenues. Im not sure this is anything new now. The owners could have had this to save the season if they wanted.

I don't think profit sharing is the same as raising the percentage of revenue sharing. Revenues are hard enough to pin down, let alone profits. Expecially when for many owners, maximizing profits isnt a goal, such as the Leafs where the pension fund is solely after capital gain.

Hard to believe there is a deal in principle for modelling a salary management sytem

Of course thoose teams made profits, everyone knew that before last season ended. The Flames made $15 after only playing max home games all the way to game 7 of the finals. Edmonton had to organize a winter wonderland festival to break even, Toronto always makes profits, the Canadiens went to rd 2, the Canucks made $20 million by over charging for PPV. They all took drastic measures to make money. Nothing is healthy get your info straight.