Linkage at 55% offered by Owners ..What does it mean ??

[Buffaloed]

Here's the way the NFL CBA handles it:

Section 2. Trigger for Guaranteed League-wide Salary, Salary Cap, and Minimum Team Salary: There shall be no Guaranteed League-wide Salary, Salary Cap, or Minimum Team Salary for NFL Teams during the 1993 League Year. If in the 1993 League Year or any subsequent League Year the

Page 95

total Player Costs for all NFL Teams equals or exceeds 67% of actual Defined Gross Revenues, there shall be a Guaranteed League-wide Salary, Salary Cap, and Minimum Team Salary in the amounts set forth below for the next League Year and all subsequent League Years, unless the Salary Cap is removed pursuant to Section 4(b)(ii)(4) below. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, there will be no Guaranteed League-wide Salary, Salary Cap or Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year.

Section 3. Guaranteed League-wide Salary: In any League Year in which a Salary Cap is in effect there shall be a Guaranteed League-wide Salary of 58% of actual Defined Gross Revenues. In the event that the Player Costs for all NFL Teams during any League Year in which a Salary Cap is in effect are less than 58% of actual Defined Gross Revenues for such season, then, on or before April 15 of the next League Year, the NFL shall pay an amount equal to such deficiency directly to players who played on NFL Teams during such season pursuant to the reasonable allocation instructions of the NFLPA.

If the payout falls below 57% there's no salary cap in effect for the next season or any subsequent season until they're in compliance with the above.
http://www.nflpa.org/Media/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Complete#art24

 

[Bauer83]

Come on stop the NHLCBAnews rhetoric, your brainwashed. I don't read any NHLPAnews to get an opinion.

Owners want the players to get linked on the revenue
Owners want the players to get capped on the rookie salary with NO BONUS
Owners want QO DOWN
Owners want the UFA to stay the same or go at 30
Owners DONT WANT stable revenue sharing.

Well the same could be argued to you that you are just listening to the PA propaganda and drinking their kool-aid. The owners do want players to get capped, and allow bonuses, but only to a certain level. The owners do want qualifying offers down which is quite normal in any business, not to always have to give someone a raise or the same pay on a performance based buisness. The owners want stable revenue sharing only if it pertains to linked revenues, not if its going to just allow the big teams to pay not only their own big salaries, but the smaller teams as well. High revenue sharing is just a way for the players to continue to make what they are making, and that does not take an economics degree. Now to this point, I think the owners have done a brutal job of revenue sharing on non-linked offers, as they are aware of what will happen. But on linked offeres, there is more than stable revenue sharing in the proposals.

 

[Bauer83]

OK.. but still it seem a bit of a streatch on HOW that exactly is going to happen...

How are they going to make it posssible for Pit to maintain a 29 million payroll?

from the NHL's proposal posted on their website(this is not propaganda, this is what they sent).

-- 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.

Which in my mind means, its non of your business how we will get there, however we say we will and now we are forced to legally do so. (A somewhat dumb approach in my head, but its the one they took)

 

[Pepper]

What does it mean?? It means that the $42M cap offered by owners is going to start looking like real attractive to the players.

 

[Russian Fan]

Well the same could be argued to you that you are just listening to the PA propaganda and drinking their kool-aid. The owners do want players to get capped, and allow bonuses, but only to a certain level. The owners do want qualifying offers down which is quite normal in any business, not to always have to give someone a raise or the same pay on a performance based buisness. The owners want stable revenue sharing only if it pertains to linked revenues, not if its going to just allow the big teams to pay not only their own big salaries, but the smaller teams as well. High revenue sharing is just a way for the players to continue to make what they are making, and that does not take an economics degree. Now to this point, I think the owners have done a brutal job of revenue sharing on non-linked offers, as they are aware of what will happen. But on linked offeres, there is more than stable revenue sharing in the proposals.

Well where is this propaganda that I'm listening for ? there no NHLPACBAnews.com ? No pro-pa on HFBoards (or less than 5%).

I'm just reading what EVERY MEDIA SAYS.

Owners want the PA to go down on EVERYTHING.

Owners already won the battle, it's just a matter on HOW you want to WIN ! Right now , they want to WIN ON EVERYTHING. QO, UFA age, Rookie Cap + no bonuses, CAP + Linkage + Minor Salaries include inside the cap.

I'm sorry but who's greedy now ?

I don't expect you to say the owners are greedy but so far it seems one side to me.

Players can agree on a cap, the owners if they were wise would have tried to give the PA something like QO à 90% instead of 75%. UFA @ 28, Bonus allowed to rookie for X amount & on.

Anyway....

 

[kdb209]

but how does that relate to setting a cap number..

from what I just read, each team will put extra money into an account..

and if the league does not meet the 53% level, it will be distributited back to the players..

But how does that work with a cap... Assumably Colorado, Detroit, and others will do their part in spending.. and Pit and such will spend less.... at a certain cap number, it likely works out...but how do you set that cap number...

More info is needed regarding the 53-55% and the cap number...

What additional info is needed (from a players/PA point of view)?

The linked proposal set out a formula for a min and max salary range and a mechanism (escrow account) to enforce the 53-55% total salary.

If the total salary # comes in over 55% of revenues - the league would take back from the escrow account. If the total salary # comes in under 53% of revenues - the league would be legally obligated to come up with the difference. How they do so is purely an issue for the owners among themselves. And how the NHLPA distributes that difference is up to the PA.

The players are guaranteed 53% and will get it. It's not really their concern how the league then handles revenue sharing or escrow shortfall - they are guaranteed the min and max team salary range and their 53-55% total cut.

 

[Russian Fan]

What does it mean?? It means that the $42M cap offered by owners is going to start looking like real attractive to the players.

Again it just mean that this lockout will be longer & longer like the ENERGIZER RABBIT.

 

[kerrly]

I don't want to comment on your post but I'm wonderin if Gary Bettman consequential to his position WOULD GUARANTEE IN THE CBA that there's wont be any contraction. Because if he says something to the fans that he believe so much that each 30 franchises would be financially stable, then he should put inside the CBA that the NHL OWNERS CAN'T CONTRACT or FOLD any team during the lenght of the CBA.

This is just an assumption but I'm pretty sure the answer would be like a politician.

There is so many other factors that could play into this as well. Its a business and there are business decisions that need to be made away from the hockey aspect by the ownership groups that can harm the financial stability of a franchise. I doubt Gary can police all of this. Contraction is not likely a factor anyways, its more likely to go the route of a sale or relocation at the worst.

 

[Phanuthier*]

Even if that is all true ....

The NHL and NHLPA are negotiating on a deal NOW ... Both sides made mistakes getting to here ...

The still does not change the fact that everything agreed upon like 55% linkage as discussed must be honoured in this legal binding agreement ..

The 42.5 mil means nothing .. that offer had no Salary Floor .. All that was is the MOST money any team could spend ... That figure is optional not manditory ... nothing stopping a team from spending 18 mil like the Pens did last season .. Then what does the 42.5 mean to players on the Pens ??

The NHL has to come up with a method that gives the players 55% of all Revenues MANDITORY .. .. by use of a Hard Cap ..that means that the MAXimum and MINimum has to be the same number .. other wise 55% means nothing nor does 42.5 mil

... you mean like linkage? Like what the NHLPA already rejected?

 

[Bauer83]

Well where is this propaganda that I'm listening for ? there no NHLPACBAnews.com ? No pro-pa on HFBoards (or less than 5%).

I'm just reading what EVERY MEDIA SAYS.

Owners want the PA to go down on EVERYTHING.

Owners already won the battle, it's just a matter on HOW you want to WIN ! Right now , they want to WIN ON EVERYTHING. QO, UFA age, Rookie Cap + no bonuses, CAP + Linkage + Minor Salaries include inside the cap.

I'm sorry but who's greedy now ?

I don't expect you to say the owners are greedy but so far it seems one side to me.

Players can agree on a cap, the owners if they were wise would have tried to give the PA something like QO à 90% instead of 75%. UFA @ 28, Bonus allowed to rookie for X amount & on.

Anyway....

Again you have your opinion, and like any pro-PA player you feel you are right. You are singing the song of how these millionares are so hard done by, and refused to look at some of the facts because they have given in on a lot of issues.

Well guess what they have, and they have been applauded in the media for it. But it will not fix the NHL problems. The NHL wants 30 sustainable franchises, and all you need to do is look at the economics to prove it. The NHL does not want a system that has the possibility of this to continue to happen, as they now have decided to run their business as one for all, instead of the previous every team for iteself. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it ensures more jobs for players. Myself, being a project manager, cannot blow my budget like previous owners, if not I get fired. However, when we try to compete budget wise with big firms, we never win. Therefore we no longer attempt to bid projects in certain areas. At the pace the NHL is going, it will be back to the original six eventually, as other teams cannot afford to pay for players who compare their salaries to big spending teams. By linking revenues and requiring all teams to pay within that range, the players are guaranteed the most money out of the deal.

35million average x 30 teams = 1.05 billion
A cap range of (15-49.5, taking the average at 34.5) x 30 teams = 1.035 billion

(now those are rough numbers so don't try to prove them wrong, I understand the discrepancy in them).

So what is the big deal that the range is smaller, and all teams spend the same. Answer that?

 

[Phanuthier*]

That makes no sense at all ..

Certainly the owners have other costs, but that is irrelevant to this discussion .. If their portion 45% didn't cover it then then shouldn't be offering the 55% ..

55% is a meaningless number if a team only intends to give the players 30 % ...

What difference does the number make that the linkage and partneship is set at if each owner can simply ignore it and not honour it ... Thats why revenue sharing is involved to help the smaller market teams out to cover cost .. but each and every team is responsible for spending 55% of TOTAL LEAGUE REVENUES not TOTAL TEAM REVENUES ..

That is the only way the players get every penny of the Partnership money that is due..

Your talking about the fair shair of the pie of this buisniess deal like the both parties have something to benefit from the NHL profits. That, sir, is complete crap. The players go laughing away with their millions of dollars, while the owners write the cheques and take the losses. Some partnership, hey?

If this really was a business partnership, then the owners would get 27% of the pie, the players would get 27% and the other 45% would go to the other costs.

 

[Mess]

Again you have your opinion, and like any pro-PA player you feel you are right. You are singing the song of how these millionares are so hard done by, and refused to look at some of the facts because they have given in on a lot of issues.

Well guess what they have, and they have been applauded in the media for it. But it will not fix the NHL problems. The NHL wants 30 sustainable franchises, and all you need to do is look at the economics to prove it. The NHL does not want a system that has the possibility of this to continue to happen, as they now have decided to run their business as one for all, instead of the previous every team for iteself. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it ensures more jobs for players. Myself, being a project manager, cannot blow my budget like previous owners, if not I get fired. However, when we try to compete budget wise with big firms, we never win. Therefore we no longer attempt to bid projects in certain areas. At the pace the NHL is going, it will be back to the original six eventually, as other teams cannot afford to pay for players who compare their salaries to big spending teams. By linking revenues and requiring all teams to pay within that range, the players are guaranteed the most money out of the deal.

35million average x 30 teams = 1.05 billion
A cap range of (15-49.5, taking the average at 34.5) x 30 teams = 1.035 billion

(now those are rough numbers so don't try to prove them wrong, I understand the discrepancy in them).

So what is the big deal that the range is smaller, and all teams spend the same. Answer that?

What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed .. I thought the NHL offered 55%... We seem to be a little short here ..

The key to the THREAD is How do you guarantee the players 55% of league revenue??

 

[ti-vite]

What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed ..

You are that dense. You are not reading the replies.

ESCROW ACCOUNT! Read the replies from the begining of the thread...

 

[Bauer83]

What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed ..

The 15 million range is what the low team was previously. That was my first assumption. The high value was the 49.5 million that the PA presented. Now you can't honestly tell me a team is going to spend 8 million per team, as that is just not going to happen. So I figured the 15 million was quite a far number to use. But again reasoning never gets anywhere.

The owners proposal on feb 2 was a range of 34.7 - 38.6. So even by numbers I was lower on the amount they could have recieved. The fact is the players want a system in place that will allow their salaries to continue to grow, where as the owners want a system that prevent the other 8 people with money from allowing that to happen. That is black and white to anyone except PA-supporters.

 

[oil slick]

What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed .. I thought the NHL offered 55%... We seem to be a little short here ..

The key to the THREAD is How do you guarantee the players 55% of league revenue??

Good god man... Read the friggin offer from the NHL, or the replies. Enough of the rampant baseless speculation.

 

[Munchausen]

What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed .. I thought the NHL offered 55%... We seem to be a little short here ..

The key to the THREAD is How do you guarantee the players 55% of league revenue??

One more time, it's on the players' own will that the 55% linkage was removed. The 42.5M offer has no linkage therefore no guarenteed share of the revenues. Can't have it both ways. Either you accept linkage and are guarenteed 55%, or you don't and are not guarenteed anything.

 

[Mess]

You are that dense. You are not reading the replies.

ESCROW ACCOUNT! Read the replies from the begining of the thread...

Do you even know what Escrow is :

It is in place for the OWNERS benefit ..

What it means that Owners will hold back a portion of a players salary and then when final figures are in give him the remaining balance ..

If league revenues go down they will keep a portion of players salary to make sure they get their 45% portion .. Escow does nothing for the players ...

Take Chris Pronger .. making 10 mil .. His team would hold back say 10 % .. So througout the season the Blues would only give him 9 mil of his 10 guaranteed contract .. Holding back 100 K until the league numbers are in and then determine if he gets the rest of it ...

That has nothing to do with Team Salaries ..

If a cap is at 42.5 mil and the Pittsburgh only spends 30 mil in salaries for the team .. Escow does not all of a sudden mean a player making 3 mil makes 5 mil to make up for that 12.5 mil that needs to be forwarded to the players ..

 

[mooseOAK*]

from the NHL's proposal posted on their website(this is not propaganda, this is what they sent).

-- 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.

Which in my mind means, its non of your business how we will get there, however we say we will and now we are forced to legally do so. (A somewhat dumb approach in my head, but its the one they took)

That's the key point for people who think that owners like Jacobs and Wirtz are going to hide revenue and cry poor and get revenue sharing. Their market sizes are going to exclude them from collecting a cent because with a cap and market they to draw from they should be able to make a profit.

 

[Pepper]

Well where is this propaganda that I'm listening for ? there no NHLPACBAnews.com ? No pro-pa on HFBoards (or less than 5%).

I'm just reading what EVERY MEDIA SAYS.

Owners want the PA to go down on EVERYTHING.

Owners already won the battle, it's just a matter on HOW you want to WIN ! Right now , they want to WIN ON EVERYTHING. QO, UFA age, Rookie Cap + no bonuses, CAP + Linkage + Minor Salaries include inside the cap.

I'm sorry but who's greedy now ?

I don't expect you to say the owners are greedy but so far it seems one side to me.

Players can agree on a cap, the owners if they were wise would have tried to give the PA something like QO à 90% instead of 75%. UFA @ 28, Bonus allowed to rookie for X amount & on.

Anyway....

Owners want to give players 55% of the revenues, no more and no less. It's the only thing they want and the moment PA agrees to it, the moment the lock-out will end.

 

[Mess]

One more time, it's on the players' own will that the 55% linkage was removed. The 42.5M offer has no linkage therefore no guarenteed share of the revenues. Can't have it both ways. Either you accept linkage and are guarenteed 55%, or you don't and are not guarenteed anything.

One more time ... Owners want linkage .. They offered 42.5 mil no linkage to try and get a new CBA .. .The 42.5 mil means nothing its only a number designed to stop a few teams from overspending ..

How does the League guarantee the 42.5 mil in actual dollars spent per team??

It stops Detroit from overspending .. How does it prevent Pittsburgh and Atlanta and Nashville and Florida from UNDERSPENDING ?? ...

The players have no control on how much a team will spend in that offer .. So how do they get their money ??

 

[Russian Fan]

Again you have your opinion, and like any pro-PA player you feel you are right. You are singing the song of how these millionares are so hard done by, and refused to look at some of the facts because they have given in on a lot of issues.

Well guess what they have, and they have been applauded in the media for it. But it will not fix the NHL problems. The NHL wants 30 sustainable franchises, and all you need to do is look at the economics to prove it. The NHL does not want a system that has the possibility of this to continue to happen, as they now have decided to run their business as one for all, instead of the previous every team for iteself. This is not an unreasonable thing to ask, and it ensures more jobs for players. Myself, being a project manager, cannot blow my budget like previous owners, if not I get fired. However, when we try to compete budget wise with big firms, we never win. Therefore we no longer attempt to bid projects in certain areas. At the pace the NHL is going, it will be back to the original six eventually, as other teams cannot afford to pay for players who compare their salaries to big spending teams. By linking revenues and requiring all teams to pay within that range, the players are guaranteed the most money out of the deal.

35million average x 30 teams = 1.05 billion
A cap range of (15-49.5, taking the average at 34.5) x 30 teams = 1.035 billion

(now those are rough numbers so don't try to prove them wrong, I understand the discrepancy in them).

So what is the big deal that the range is smaller, and all teams spend the same. Answer that?

That's the problem between you & me. You think that I'm pro-pa & what I say is true when in fact it's more an opinion on how to solve this lockout. If you read me, I'm not rooting for the PA but I'm saying that if the owners want to solve this they need to compromise on some issues. CAP is important to you ? FINE , I agree with them but what you're gonna give in return ? NOTHING ? I'm not fine with it.

 

[Bauer83]

Do you even know what Escrow is :

It is in place for the OWNERS benefit ..

What it means that Owners will hold back a portion of a players salary and then when final figures are in give him the remaining balance ..

If league revenues go down they will keep a portion of players salary to make sure they get their 45% portion .. Escow does nothing for the players ...

Take Chris Pronger .. making 10 mil .. His team would hold back say 10 % .. So througout the season the Blues would only give him 9 mil of his 10 guaranteed contract .. Holding back 100 K until the league numbers are in and then determine if he gets the rest of it ...

That has nothing to do with Team Salaries ..

If a cap is at 42.5 mil and the Pittsburgh only spends 30 mil in salaries for the team .. Escow does not all of a sudden mean a player making 3 mil makes 5 mil to make up for that 12.5 mil that needs to be forwarded to the players ..

You really do not understand the proposal and are unwilling to read it. Escrow is not the part that will get them up to the number, and this has been pointed out many times in this thread. You just choose not to pay attention to it. Escrow ensures that the players do recieve 53-55% percent of their revenue, if after all is said and done the revenue to player costs is not within that range. The salary floor and ceiling is what causes pittsurbgh to have to make within that range, which according to the NHL on february 2 proposal was between 34-37 million.

 

[kdb209]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
What range ??

The 42.5 Million FINAL OFFER has no floor just a ceiling at 42.5 ...

The only floor in minimum wage 350k X 23 players = 8 mil mimimum ..

By your logic ($ 42.5 max + $ 8 min = 50.5 /2 = 25.25) X 30 teams = 757.5 Mil

757.5 mil / 2.1 Bil = 36% ... That is all the Players are guaranteed ..

You are that dense. You are not reading the replies.

ESCROW ACCOUNT! Read the replies from the begining of the thread...

You are mixing up two different offers here.

The original NHL offer with 53-55%, min & max team salary range , and escrow was a linkage offer.

The final NHL offer ($42.5 cap) was a non-linkage offer (what the player's supposedly wanted) with no floor and no escrow.

There is no way you get any reasonable salary floor with a non-linkage offer. You will see a $30M-$42M offer with linkage, but you will never see a floor that high without. If revenues ever drop (say from $2.1B to $1.0B) that floor (30 x $30M = $900M) is over 90% of revenue.

Any floor in a non-linkage offer will have to be in the $15M-$20M range.

 

[Russian Fan]

Owners want to give players 55% of the revenues, no more and no less. It's the only thing they want and the moment PA agrees to it, the moment the lock-out will end.

That's where you're wrong. YES linkage is an issue but the owners just doesn't want that. They want the QO at 75%, they want the UFA age at the same age or 1 years younger (30) . They want to include minor salaries to the linkage. They want the rookie contract going from 3 to 4. They want no more incentive to a rookie.

That's why BOTH SIDES said they were NOT CLOSE AT ALL than most of the FANS & MEDIAS seems a few weeks ago.

 

[Bauer83]

That's the problem between you & me. You think that I'm pro-pa & what I say is true when in fact it's more an opinion on how to solve this lockout. If you read me, I'm not rooting for the PA but I'm saying that if the owners want to solve this they need to compromise on some issues. CAP is important to you ? FINE , I agree with them but what you're gonna give in return ? NOTHING ? I'm not fine with it.

Well we can agree on this, but I am forming my opinion based on two things. One is that I want my Oilers to stay. Two I am trying to look just at the business side of what makes sense, and not on who is giving what up. So I might have taken you for a Pro-PA guy, and sorry for pigeonholding you there. All I am trying to say is that I don't care who wins in the public eye, I don't care if there is linkage or a salary cap or a luxury tax, I care that 30 teams remain, and especially one in Edmonton where we sell out every game, support ourt team beyond belief, and can't afford to keep players. Now don't believe the garbage that is spewed by some of our management that we cannot afford to stay in the league, cause that is bull. We just choose no longer to be a farm team, and have to draft perfectly in order to end up with a good team.