Huge News!!! Nhlpa Offers Cap

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,126
Good catch, mudcrutch. I was just about to post this.

In and of itself this news is to a certain extent meaningless without getting any idea of what the numbers were on the proposed cap. However, the fact that the PA has reportedly proposed a cap is another compromise that could lead to better things.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
mudcrutch79 said:
That the NHLPA offered to agree to a salary cap, and the NHL declined. I'll try and get a link, the guys on TSN just said this.

At what numbers? If over $45 million or $50 million I can understand why. Otherwise it makes no sense.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
mudcrutch79 said:
That the NHLPA offered to agree to a salary cap, and the NHL declined. I'll try and get a link, the guys on TSN just said this.


it depends on the number they put out, if its 55 or 60 million...thats insane, right now even 45 million would surprise me because of the lockout

if they would have went to 45 million in Aug....we would be playing hockey right now
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
and don't be surprised if this leads to a deal...if the NHLPA actually agreed to a cap then that is huge progress
 

Charge_Seven

Registered User
Aug 12, 2003
4,631
0
Awesome.

So when the news broke that the PA rejected the deal that had four ridiculous triggers, prior to the triggers being released everyone felt right jumping all over them. Now that the show is on the other foot, with the NHL rejecting a cap proposal everyone wants to wait and see?

*In fairness, I don't know that anyone here posting attacked the PA for rejecting just the masses did. It's the right aproach to take, by waiting to see what th eoffer was, but in fairness, we all know it's in the 40-50 million range. A 45 million offer is a reasonable offer as long as no floor exists.
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
CP strikes me as pretty credible-off the top of my head, I can't remember many stories blowing up in their face. TSN isn't much a rumour station either. If the PA has put that on the table, it sure shifts the pressure to the NHL.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
likea said:
and don't be surprised if this leads to a deal...if the NHLPA actually agreed to a cap then that is huge progress


Unless it is at numbers that they know the NHL could never accept. If so then it is especially disappointing that they began with a sham proposal of that 24% giveback and ended with a sham 'acceptance' of a Cap. I truly believe that if the players had early on given in on the Cap the owners would have negotiated within that framework and given quite a bit. I do not see how it could have worked the other way, a luxury tax will in no way guarentee that payrolls will keep anywhere close to that range of $32 million to $42 million, nor will it guarentee that salaries will not continue to eat up seventy something percent of revenues.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
GregStack said:
Awesome.

So when the news broke that the PA rejected the deal that had four ridiculous triggers, prior to the triggers being released everyone felt right jumping all over them. Now that the show is on the other foot, with the NHL rejecting a cap proposal everyone wants to wait and see?

*In fairness, I don't know that anyone here posting attacked the PA for rejecting just the masses did. It's the right aproach to take, by waiting to see what th eoffer was, but in fairness, we all know it's in the 40-50 million range. A 45 million offer is a reasonable offer as long as no floor exists.


I attacked the PA because the triggers were a good starting point to negotiate

if the NHL turned down a low 40's cap, I will attack them as well...but if the turned down anything at or over 45 million...I have to agree

lockout losses is going to add up, the NHL will probabaly at least lose 20-30% of their revenues

50 million guaranteed is being in the same boat as before....
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
GregStack said:
Awesome.

So when the news broke that the PA rejected the deal that had four ridiculous triggers, prior to the triggers being released everyone felt right jumping all over them. Now that the show is on the other foot, with the NHL rejecting a cap proposal everyone wants to wait and see?

*In fairness, I don't know that anyone here posting attacked the PA for rejecting just the masses did. It's the right aproach to take, by waiting to see what th eoffer was, but in fairness, we all know it's in the 40-50 million range. A 45 million offer is a reasonable offer as long as no floor exists.


No, the PA was attacked, rightly so, for rejecting the triggers without countering.
 

Ol' Dirty Chinaman*

Guest
evilpinky.jpg

"Austin, our offer is a salary cap; at one hundred thousand beeeellion dollars !"

coat.jpg

"That's just not grooooovy baby mmhhmm yeasmmmhmm. ...boobies !"

Dollars to dognuts PA offered a cap around 70million. This is a non-starter, RIP 2005-2006.
 

PeterSidorkiewicz

HFWF Tourney Undisputed Champion
Apr 30, 2004
32,442
9,701
Lansing, MI
In the Ottawa Sun article by Garrioch it said the offer for the cap was around 42 million with no linkage. I dunno if it's true or not but thats what it says.
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
mudcrutch79 said:
If it was that, but with no floor, and significant revenue sharing, it would certainly put the owners in an awkward position.


the players proposing revenue sharing is like me telling you how to spend your money

its nuts????

50 million would not put the owners in an awkward position, most of the bottoms teams can only spend 32-38 million with revenue sharing....its still an 18 million dollar difference in patroll from top to bottom

thats to much for competitive balance, which is what this is about...even the Red Wings Pres. said as much

42 million hard cap would be more than fair for both sides
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,126
Well at the very least this gives pseudo-official confirmation of the fact that the PA is willing to move off the principle of no-cap, something that has been rumored for a while now.

The owners may never get linkage but if the numbers are right and the other components are in place this thing may get worked out sooner rather than later.
 

Wetcoaster

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
Unless it is at numbers that they know the NHL could never accept. If so then it is especially disappointing that they began with a sham proposal of that 24% giveback and ended with a sham 'acceptance' of a Cap. I truly believe that if the players had early on given in on the Cap the owners would have negotiated within that framework and given quite a bit. I do not see how it could have worked the other way, a luxury tax will in no way guarentee that payrolls will keep anywhere close to that range of $32 million to $42 million, nor will it guarentee that salaries will not continue to eat up seventy something percent of revenues.
Of course player salaries never did eat up seventy something per cent of revenues. Taken in again by the NHL/Levitt sleight of hand.

In a recent issue of The Hockey News, Bill Daly defended the Arthur Levitt report by asking all critics to read it first. Perhaps Daly should've asked his boss Gary Bettman to read it first -- Bettman, in the news conference introducing the report, said, "Actually, we thought the percentage of gross revenue taken up by player salaries was 76%, he [Levitt] said 75%."

Actually, he said no such thing. Levitt said 75% of net revenue, not gross revenue, goes toward total player costs, not just salaries. These are significant differences. What the NHL calls net revenue (a measure it invented all for itself that comes closest to what everyone calls gross profit) is gross revenue net of direct costs -- except for player salaries, as direct a cost as there is for a hockey operation. Other costs, such as travel expenses, insurance, social security, and the like, make up part of the 75% Bettman incorrectly called "player salaries" -- Levitt even includes minor league salaries, which would be fine if minor league revenues were included, but they were not.

Actually, I take it back -- Levitt didn't write "gross revenue" but he did say it. When asked quite plainly during the press conference introducing his report, "Can you tell me what the gross revenues of the League actually equal," Levitt responded, "two billion". But he probably just misspoke in the heat of the Q and A.

And the very next question? "Can you tell me what comes under the universe of player costs? I assume that's more than just what they are paying in salary." Deferring to his lieutenant Lynn Turner, the response was, "salary and bonuses, benefits and other payments including pension benefits, CBA monies, those are the type of costs that are all included in the player costs." No mention of travel expenses, insurance payments for injured players, minor league salaries, NHL award payments (that's part of what he meant by "CBA monies") -- those might have prompted additional questions.

The truth is, the NHL doesn't want anyone to read the report, and doesn't expect anyone to. The whole world parrots their net revenue of $1.996 billion, player costs of $1.494 billion, and the 75% ratio between the two without understanding of what those terms mean.

That's $273 million in operational losses -- not true earnings after accounting for interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (except for the $100 million selectively reported for one type of interest) -- for hockey operations as stand-alone entities, not including the joint operations at least 22 teams enjoy with related business entities like arenas, other sports franchises, and media networks. And that's 75% of net revenue of nearly $2 billion (aka gross profit), not gross revenue, going for total player costs, not just salaries.

Net revenue is not a term you will find in any accounting glossary. The closest you'll come is net sales, allowing deduction for returns, discounts, and undeliverable merchandise from gross revenue. Gross profit, the closest accounting term to the NHL's net revenue, is net sales minus the actual cost of goods sold -- for a hockey operation, the cost of food sold by concessions, for example. The NHL goes beyond that, deducting every direct cost from gross revenue, not just cost of goods sold (to extend the concession example, the cost of labor).

Look at any financial report for any company in the world, and you will not see anything resembling what the NHL calls net revenue (you'll find reports that show net revenue in the sense of net sales). Every other company in the world wants to maximize revenue, and then account for cost, not understate revenues and overstate a single expense category, as the NHL does for public consumption (their actual books have still not been scrutinized in full by anyone, including Levitt).

And I hate to say it, but I come away believing Levitt has performed a conscious, if completely legitimate, sleight of hand, designed first, last, and always to support the NHL's claims, not test them.
http://ordinaryleastsquare.typepad.com/dubi/2004/03/reading_compreh.html

Taken in yet again.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
In the Ottawa Sun article by Garrioch it said the offer for the cap was around 42 million with no linkage. I dunno if it's true or not but thats what it says.


It did not . . . that article said that six players were coming up with a proposal to submit to the NHLPA and NHL to try and find a compromise. It was not regarding the supposed NHLPA Cap offer this thread is about. The specific reference in the Sun article to $42 million:

A source told the Sun a group of six players -- that was believed to include Roenick, Pronger and Iginla -- was trying to pitch a deal which would see the NHLPA accept a salary cap, likely with a $42-million US limit but without a link to revenues.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/Sports/2005/02/15/931193-sun.html
 

hulkrogan

Registered User
Feb 15, 2004
15
0
Bicycle Repairman said:
Bruce Garrioch is reporting that the two sides will meet Tuesday. A players' group led by Roenick, Iginla and Pronger are apparently ameniable to a salary cap.

Ottawa Sun

Holy crap! If that article is accurate, my optimism is at an all time high. We have a few players known to tow the line saying the would accept a cap!?!?!?

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
 

likea

Registered User
Jul 9, 2004
599
0
PeterSidorkiewicz said:
In the Ottawa Sun article by Garrioch it said the offer for the cap was around 42 million with no linkage. I dunno if it's true or not but thats what it says.


that might not have been the offer given to the NHL first
 

Cloned

Begging for Bega
Aug 25, 2003
78,946
64,126
leaflover said:
This was on sports centre?
Or did they break for an update?
They introduced the second half of the show with the news. No details given and it was more of an aside than anything, probably because they don't have those details.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->