Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by kummelweck, Dec 14, 2004.
I love the one time salary roll back thing
anyone making 800,000 or less gets no rollback they remain the same.
while the richer players get bigger rollbacks.
much more fair IMO.
I think that's a great deal... better than 24% for all..
I agree. It's quite brilliant. It also puts the richer guys (like Alfredsson) in a worse spot PR-wise than they already are.
I disagree, why should the big money players have to give back a bigger percentage ??? They're already giving back far more money. The NHL isn't doing this to be fair to the little guy. They want this because they know that salaries are all based on what the top players make.
Good deal, stirs the pot.
I never really thought about it but you're right.
They were already agreeing to have a 24% rollback so I dont see how its a worse PR spot....
because a player making 10 million gets bumped down to 7.6 million still makes more then enough money.
and player B who makes less then a million gets his salary cut by the same 24% but to him that might acctually mean something where as the superstar is still making more in one season then Player B will probably make his entire career.
under this system Player A would have a 35% cutback, so instead of going from 10 to 7.6 he goes from 10 to 6.5 million(still a boat load)
while Player B hasn't been penalized at all.
maybee the NHL didn't mean for it to be fair to the little guy but I certinly find it fair to him.
and isn't that one of the biggest problems the NHL has been facing? so while the NHL's rollback saves them LESS money then the NHLPA's offer it lowers the troublesome contracts down to a manigable level while the contracts that have never been a problem arn't cut either.
The NHL looking to eliminate the following:
Entry level contracts can't contain any signing or performance bonuses
The salary cap for last year would have been a minimum of $34.6 million and a maximim of $38.6 million on the high end. (I'd love to see how this helps Pittsburgh or Nashville)
Players become UFA's at age 30.
Nice compromise guys!
Now those deffintly need some work on.
Yes, so John LeClair forfiets $9.45 million that he earned .... and the little guy gives up nothing. I'm sorry but I find that incredibly unfair.
I love the proposal, thats really the neatest piece of a CBA-proposal I have ever seen It neither looks like a luxury tax, nor like a hard cap, everybody could accept it without a loss of face.
And by increasing the minimum wage and by not decreasing the salary of players under 800k/year, you could pretty much ask who represents the majority of the players and Im sure thats one of Bettmans Goals.
Skimmed over the page.
Is this really a proposal or just a response to the NHLPA?
Where is the cost-certainty mumbojumbo
7. Payroll Range System. While an appropriate one-time rollback on all currently existing NHL contracts is a necessary first step, the right way -- the only way we know to solve our problems and make the game healthy going forward for everyone's benefit -- is to negotiate a new economic partnership system based upon the Players receiving a fair share of all Hockey-Related Revenues. We must have a system that will ensure the maintenance of a rational equilibrium between League-wide revenues and Player compensation. Whether the NHL will know what its costs will be is not an issue that can be compromised -- you either know your costs or you do not. This business, like virtually every other, needs to be able to plan and predict its business operations, especially given the hundreds of millions of dollars in losses experienced by the Clubs over the course of the recently expired CBA. We are, however, prepared to compromise and negotiate over how much the Players' aggregate fair share will be.
Accordingly, we propose that the Players, as a group, receive initially 54% of all Hockey-Related Revenues (as defined), which Revenues, as you know for 2003-04 are forecasted to be $2.1 billion ("Revenues" is a "projection" because the financial reporting for last season has not been completed). Fifty-four percent (54%) represents an approximate $17 million (U.S.) increase over our prior offer of 53.2% and demonstrates the NHL's willingness to compromise the cost, so long as that cost is known.
Under the NHL's proposal of a negotiated Payroll Range system:
Player Compensation (including benefits) will initially equal 54.0%.
The system will permit flexibility in spending among the individual Clubs, with each Club obligated to spend no less than 51% and no more than 57% of its 1/30th share of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues on Player Compensation (the "Payroll Range").
An agreed upon appropriate percentage of each Club's Player payroll will automatically be escrowed to ensure compliance with the 54% allocation.
Following the end of each League Year, the League's Hockey-Related Revenues will be audited by an independent auditor jointly selected by the NHL and NHLPA, and the escrowed funds will be distributed either to the Players; or to the Clubs; or to both Players and Clubs in order to ensure that the Players receive 54% of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues.
If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 54 percent of the League's Hockey-Related Revenues, the Clubs would be required to contribute additional dollars to a pool to be distributed to the Players to ensure that they receive their full 54% Share.
Equitable rules will be developed to enable all Clubs to be in immediate compliance with the Payroll Range system.
As detailed in Exhibit 19, under the proposed Payroll Range system, Players would have received approximately $1.1 billion in Player compensation in 2004-05, based upon 54% of projected Hockey-Related Revenues of $2.032 billion. The Payroll Range system as described in Exhibit 19 would permit Clubs the flexibility of spending within a range of $34.6 million on the low end, and $38.6 million on the high end, on Player compensation. The final page of Exhibit 19 projects the annual growth in average Player payroll per team and average Player salary over a five-year period.
While the League's proposed Payroll Range system contemplates some flexibility in allowing Clubs to establish the level of their respective payrolls, the League is not prepared to accept continued wide-ranging disparities in payroll among its teams. Rather, and as we have consistently maintained, the League is committed to significantly reducing or eliminating payroll disparities and distributing Player talent more equitably among Clubs, so that fans in each of our Clubs' 30 markets can rightly feel that their team has the legitimate ability to compete on a regular basis. A system that promotes increased competitiveness on the ice will result in a more attractive entertainment product. As attendance, viewership, and public interest increases, more revenue will ultimately be generated for the benefit of both Players and Clubs -- with the Players receiving more than half of the incremental revenues.
I understand but LeClair's contract is one of the problem contracts in the league while say Todd Fedoruk's isn't.
1) LeClair isn't worth 9.45 million dollars. no player is IMO.
2) LeClair doesn't forfeit 9.45 million he forfeits 2-3 million
I think John LeClair can survive making around 5-6 million a season, He and McCabe can make a living off that I guess...
I do understand that players will need to make some sacrifices when this happens, I imagine there will be less Ivory Back Scratchers bought under a system like this.
Not like it matters the players won't accept it and we'll be back at square one.
No deal to be made here. Another week wasted.
What next, Msrs. Bettman and Goodenow?
Didn't you know they plan to share revenue, but just dont ask them to explain it.
NGO said it about a month ago and it still rings true. The large markets and small markets teams have come to an agreement. The large markets will limit their spending but wont drastically share revenue.
Sort of like 'real life' graduated taxes, isn't it? Maybe you find that unfair as well ( I do NOT want to start up a debate on 'real life' anything ), but it's the same sort of premise--rich guys can afford to spend more on taxes. Here's a fun chart from the NHL response (edited):
Percent of all contracts:
Less than $800K (0% cut) 43.8%
Between $800K to $1.49MM (15.0% cut) 24.0%
Between $1.50MM to $1.99MM (20.0% cut) 7.3%
Between $2.00MM to $3.99MM (24.0% cut) 16.7%
Between $4.00MM to 4.99MM (30.0% cut) 3.0%
$5.00MM and Over (35.0% cut) 5.2%
Divide and conquer. Also, for those looking for a sliver of hope:
The Flyers decided that LeClair was worth $9 million a year, and they thought he was worht it and that's all that matters. LeClair has 3 years and $27 million left on his deal, so he would forfeit $9 million+
They plan to share playoff revenue but not regular season revenue, which gives someone like Wirtz even less incentive to put a quality product on ice.
I love this paragraph:
Well, no hockey this season.
The NHL isn't gonna blink this time. They held their ground and gave the low end players reason to make noise by raising the minimum salary and not cutting their salaries at all.
The NHLPA will have to make major concessions if we are to see hockey this year. If not, we'll be sitting here talking about it again this time next year I expect.
Separate names with a comma.