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

[SENSible1*]

Despite the "boy are you ever a moron" posts being tossed at the pro-player side, nobody can explain how this escrow account is supposed to work, or how its not going to screw over the small market teams it was supposed to save.

Lets take everybody's favorite example, Pittsburgh. Hypothetically, lets say they can afford $27 million, before they lose money. So they sign 23 players and have a payroll of $27 million. They break even.

But...

55% linkage says they have to pay $32 million. But who gets the money? The 23 players all signed by the Pens all have legitimate contracts, totalling $27 million. How will this be divided up? More importantly, where will the money come from? If, hypothetically, Colorado has spent $32 million already, should they contribute more? Should they have to pay more than 55% of revenue? Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others? Or do they say "screw you, we've met our requirements."

The Pens are $5 million short, which if they draw from their own pocket, will mean they will still be losing money. Revenue sharing? Ignore for a moment that it will mean some teams will be paying more than 55%, what about all these rumours that say the league revenue sharing plans will diminish and disappear by Year 6 of the agreement? What happens to the Pens then?

The Pens are required to spend $32 M on players. If they want to offer their players bonuses amounting to $5M instead of adding it onto their base salaries, then that would be fine. The bottom line is that they need to spend that much money.

How they come up with the money is 100% the owners business.

"Don't worry about it!!! Not the player's concern!!! The owners will find a way to cover the costs, and the players will get their money!!! Moron!"

The PA is well within its rights to ask for guarantees that 30 franchises will stay in business throughout the deal and negotiate the penalties for the owners failing to fulfill that promise.

They have zero right to have a say in how the owners fulfill their promise to have adequate revenue sharing.

The reason NFL-style linkage works is because all money is goes into a pool, and is then divided up equally amongst all teams (and if you do a google search on NFL revenue, you'll see that this is quite the contentious issue amongst NFL owners and players too). Even though the Arizona Cardinals have a MUCH, MUCH smaller revenue stream then say, the Washington Redskins, the Cardinals get the same amount of money as the 'Skins do. Can anybody see NHL owners doing that?

Or is more likely that they'll simply "hide" revenues?

The "hiding money" smokescreen has had so many holes blown in it that it resembles swiss cheese at this point.

 

[JohnnyReb]

They have zero right to have a say in how the owners fulfill their promise to have adequate revenue sharing.

They may have zero say, but I'm sure they have a whole lot of interest. Its their money, after all, and any good investment adviser would tell them to keep a pretty good eye on it. This "trust us, we'll get it to you" thing just won't fly, any more than it would fly with you, if your mutual fund adviser told you to "trust me, I'll get you a return on your money, don't ask me how."

The "hiding money" smokescreen has had so many holes blown in it that it resembles swiss cheese at this point.

Perhaps to you, but not to the players, myself, or a good number of journalists, tax inspectors and governments. Check Russ Conway's article on Jeremy Jacobs attempting to hide TV revenue, by saying it came from outer space.

Its a fundamental issue of trust, and whether you like it or not, in the player's minds the owners have not earned this trust. You can scream "independant auditor" all you want, but if a guy like Jacobs (and he is hardly alone) is willing to break the law to hide revenues, then surely he would have no qualms about (continuing) to screw over some of his employees, no? Look up Paul Beeson's famous quote on turning a profit into a loss, and getting every major accounting firm to agree with him...

 

[Russian Fan]

The disappearing revenue sharing was in the non-linked proposal. Every linked proposal the NHL has made has guaranteed enough money for teams to spend to the salary floor. If you want proof, please go back a few pages and read my other post on the NHL revenue sharing plans.

You're an Oilers fans so I'm concern about your team kerrly. Bettman guaranteed he would help the teams but he never said for how long ? Are the NHLPA trying to save you or just some P.R. move (which I can't understand why they would do that since they never cared about the PR WAR unlike Bettman).

Bettman never guaranteed for how long ? It seems that Bettman possibly received some advice that everyone on B.O.G are willing to help the small team but not for forever. IF (& I said IF) it's true that in the NHL's plan that after 6 years, the revenue plan goes BLANK, why having this lockout in the 1st place ?

I just think that revenue sharing is more important than linkage , than a cap, than everything else & so far, the NHLPA seems to care more about that than the owner but every pro-owners because they are scared of their little teams thinks they should go with the owners because they think they gonna save their market (i.e Buffalo, Nashville, Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary & on & on....).

I just think the owners are more about appearance than substance when it comes to saving small markets teams because they don't want partnership with themselves.

 

[oil slick]

They may have zero say, but I'm sure they have a whole lot of interest. Its their money, after all, and any good investment adviser would tell them to keep a pretty good eye on it. This "trust us, we'll get it to you" thing just won't fly, any more than it would fly with you, if your mutual fund adviser told you to "trust me, I'll get you a return on your money, don't ask me how."

Do you honestly think that with a CBA that includes lines like "If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 55 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 55% Share" that the NHL will not distribute 55% of revenues to the players?

If they don't distribute the money, the NHLPA will grieve, and the money will be forthcoming. That is the nature of business. Now there may be some question about how the money gets distributed -- I would imagine by the NHLPA, but the money will get to the players.

Perhaps to you, but not to the players, myself, or a good number of journalists, tax inspectors and governments. Check Russ Conway's article on Jeremy Jacobs attempting to hide TV revenue, by saying it came from outer space.

Its a fundamental issue of trust, and whether you like it or not, in the player's minds the owners have not earned this trust. You can scream "independant auditor" all you want, but if a guy like Jacobs (and he is hardly alone) is willing to break the law to hide revenues, then surely he would have no qualms about (continuing) to screw over some of his employees, no? Look up Paul Beeson's famous quote on turning a profit into a loss, and getting every major accounting firm to agree with him...

This is a more valid argument, although not what this thread is about. The problem with the argument is that plenty of businesses (that by and large don't trust each other) enter into profit sharing all the time. If the CBA is written such that revenues is well defined, and mutually agreeable acountants are used, I think something can be worked out.

 

[Mess]

Do you honestly think that with a CBA that includes lines like "If, for whatever reason, NHL Clubs contract to spend less than 55 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 55% Share" that the NHL will not distribute 55% of revenues to the players?

If they don't distribute the money, the NHLPA will grieve, and the money will be forthcoming. That is the nature of business. Now there may be some question about how the money gets distributed -- I would imagine by the NHLPA, but the money will get to the players.

Now even if I grant you all this what good does it do ??

Teams like the Pens and Atlanta and Florida will field teams far below the 55% amount the players are due .. The UFA of the NHL will be sitting out not being employed or playing Hockey and then the NHL at the end of the year when it has made money hand over fist .. turns over some to insure the NHLPA gets is fair share ..

The NHLPA stance is a market place for its players .. You are basically talking payouts and bribes .. How do you address the players not playing and how in the world would the NHLPA fairly divvy up the money to the players. Every single player playing or not will hold out its hands for a top up .. That doesn't fix the system .. That theory works great for owners dividing up profit pool by 30 but not 750 players ..

That's the problem.. IMO ..that the NHL is not addressing ..

The NHLPA wants a system in place that forces the 30 NHL teams to SPEND 55% of League Revenue on player salaries throughout the year .. Not spend 35% and then hand the NHLPA a big 20% check at seasons end and say deal with it..

 

[SENSible1*]

They may have zero say, but I'm sure they have a whole lot of interest. Its their money, after all, and any good investment adviser would tell them to keep a pretty good eye on it. This "trust us, we'll get it to you" thing just won't fly, any more than it would fly with you, if your mutual fund adviser told you to "trust me, I'll get you a return on your money, don't ask me how."

Then you write penalty clauses into the contract that ensure it is in the OWNERS best interest to abide by the terms. No trust necessary.

Perhaps to you, but not to the players, myself, or a good number of journalists, tax inspectors and governments. Check Russ Conway's article on Jeremy Jacobs attempting to hide TV revenue, by saying it came from outer space.

Its a fundamental issue of trust, and whether you like it or not, in the player's minds the owners have not earned this trust. You can scream "independant auditor" all you want, but if a guy like Jacobs (and he is hardly alone) is willing to break the law to hide revenues, then surely he would have no qualms about (continuing) to screw over some of his employees, no? Look up Paul Beeson's famous quote on turning a profit into a loss, and getting every major accounting firm to agree with him...

It is the nature of business that groups with divergent interests come together to form partnerships that are mutually beneficial in spite of the fact that they neither like nor trust each other, but do trust their legal advisors to draft documents that protect each sides interests while clearly outlining punitive measures that ensure that both sides deal honestly with each other because it is too costly to get caught cheating.

Trust is a non-issue, unless the players figure their lawyers are too incompetent to ensure the legal documents protect their interests. If that is the case, then they should seek better legal advice, perhaps consulting the lawyers who help draft the NFL and NBA CBA's for their PA's.

 

[misterjaggers]

Now even if I grant you all this what good does it do ?? ....Teams like the Pens and Atlanta and Florida will field teams far below the 55% amount the players are due ..[but] the NHL at the end of the year .. turns over some to insure the NHLPA gets is fair share ..[so]...You are [then] basically talking payouts and bribes ..

When you get a commission check at the end of the month or a profit sharing check at the end of the year do you feel like you were paid off or bribed!?!?

 

[kerrly]

You're an Oilers fans so I'm concern about your team kerrly. Bettman guaranteed he would help the teams but he never said for how long ? Are the NHLPA trying to save you or just some P.R. move (which I can't understand why they would do that since they never cared about the PR WAR unlike Bettman).

Bettman never guaranteed for how long ? It seems that Bettman possibly received some advice that everyone on B.O.G are willing to help the small team but not for forever. IF (& I said IF) it's true that in the NHL's plan that after 6 years, the revenue plan goes BLANK, why having this lockout in the 1st place ?

I just think that revenue sharing is more important than linkage , than a cap, than everything else & so far, the NHLPA seems to care more about that than the owner but every pro-owners because they are scared of their little teams thinks they should go with the owners because they think they gonna save their market (i.e Buffalo, Nashville, Carolina, Edmonton, Calgary & on & on....).

I just think the owners are more about appearance than substance when it comes to saving small markets teams because they don't want partnership with themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally for revenue sharing, but I'm also a realist and don't expect the big teams to fork over huge amounts of cash. Personally I think its a bit unfair too. They lose their ability to spend and then are basically losing alot of their profits too.

In the linked proposals Bettman has put forth, everyone has stated that there will be enough revenue sharing that each team will be able to meet the salary floor for the duration of the CBA. Plenty good enough for me. This basically means that every team will have enough cash to spend to the bottom threshold without losing money (provided proper business control and operation have been present). What more could you ask for. I don't expect the Maple Leafs to fork over tons of cash to give the Oilers ownership group large profits. If the Oilers ownership group wants to increase revenues to make profits, that is up to them by putting the best team possible on the ice, and maximizing playoff and other forms of revenue.

In the PA's soft cap proposal of $49m, they clearly stated that they would adopt the NHL's revenue sharing plan of upwards of $88 million a season per every year of the agreement. I realize that the unlinked proposal that the NHL proposed, had revenue sharing disappear by the 6th year (if true, but we will assume it is for the sake of the debate), which I think is ridiculous, and is a horrible move by the NHL. Eventhough I understand the premise that their is no salary floor in the unlinked proposal. But, the NHL really needs to make sure to extend this olive branch to the PA each and every proposal, its the least they could do.

Revenue sharing is important but without linkage and/or a cap, its just serves as another inlflationary tool. Salaries need to be restricted, or otherwise it just spreads the losses around the league, and might even increase losses.

Oh and by the way, I would take any plan of the NHL's without revenue sharing over any of the NHLPA's proposals with revenue sharing. Why? Because in every single proposal the NHLPA has made, have had major loopholes to allow the inflationary aspect to continue. What does revenue sharing matter when the league as whole will still be losing massive amounts of money?

 

[SENSible1*]

The NHLPA stance is a market place for its players .. You are basically talking payouts and bribes .. How do you address the players not playing and how in the world would the NHLPA fairly divvy up the money to the players. Every single player playing or not will hold out its hands for a top up .. That doesn't fix the system .. That theory works great for owners dividing up profit pool by 30 but not 750 players ..

The NHLPA wants a system in place that forces the 30 NHL teams to SPEND 55% of League Revenue on player salaries throughout the year .. Not spend 35% and then hand the NHLPA a big 20% check at seasons end and say deal with it..
[/size][/font][/size][/font]

That is a very interesting stance and one I have never heard from any PA spokesperson.

The only way this is true is if the top earning 10% of the PA are solely driving the agenda.

How would the other 90% not be better off if they could gain access to a more equitable distribution of the 20% of league revenues in your fantasy scenario?

Are you trying to maintain that the 90% of PA members would object to linkage so that Pronger can make 10M as a UFA instead of 7M?

 

[oil slick]

The NHLPA wants a system in place that forces the 30 NHL teams to SPEND 55% of League Revenue on player salaries throughout the year .. Not spend 35% and then hand the NHLPA a big 20% check at seasons end and say deal with it..
[/size][/font][/size][/font]

That is patently untrue. The NHLPA has never proposed such a system. They do not want any kind of linkage, because they want the total amount spent on players to be able to go above any set percentage.

In response to your other points, I would say a couple of things.

"Teams like the Pens and Atlanta and Florida will field teams far below the 55% amount the players are due .. The UFA of the NHL will be sitting out not being employed or playing Hockey and then the NHL at the end of the year when it has made money hand over fist .. turns over some to insure the NHLPA gets is fair share .. "

I don't know how to respond to this. First of all, the NHL will employ the same number of players it does now... who are these UFA's you are talking about? If you are implying the NHL won't employ the star UFA players, I have no idea why they would not.

Are you saying it is in the NHL's best interest to employ Bonsignore for 1/2 million, and then give a cheque to the NHLPA for 6 million, rather than spending 6.5 million on Iginla?!? How does this help the NHL? It's still in their best interests to sign Iginla... he'll only increase revenues, which means the NHL gets more $$.

 

[Russian Fan]

Don't get me wrong, I am totally for revenue sharing, but I'm also a realist and don't expect the big teams to fork over huge amounts of cash. Personally I think its a bit unfair too. They lose their ability to spend and then are basically losing alot of their profits too.

In the linked proposals Bettman has put forth, everyone has stated that there will be enough revenue sharing that each team will be able to meet the salary floor for the duration of the CBA. Plenty good enough for me. This basically means that every team will have enough cash to spend to the bottom threshold without losing money (provided proper business control and operation have been present). What more could you ask for. I don't expect the Maple Leafs to fork over tons of cash to give the Oilers ownership group large profits. If the Oilers ownership group wants to increase revenues to make profits, that is up to them by putting the best team possible on the ice, and maximizing playoff and other forms of revenue.

In the PA's soft cap proposal of $49m, they clearly stated that they would adopt the NHL's revenue sharing plan of upwards of $88 million a season per every year of the agreement. I realize that the unlinked proposal that the NHL proposed, had revenue sharing disappear by the 6th year (if true, but we will assume it is for the sake of the debate), which I think is ridiculous, and is a horrible move by the NHL. Eventhough I understand the premise that their is no salary floor in the unlinked proposal. But, the NHL really needs to make sure to extend this olive branch to the PA each and every proposal, its the least they could do.

Revenue sharing is important but without linkage and/or a cap, its just serves as another inlflationary tool. Salaries need to be restricted, or otherwise it just spreads the losses around the league, and might even increase losses.

Oh and by the way, I would take any plan of the NHL's without revenue sharing over any of the NHLPA's proposals with revenue sharing. Why? Because in every single proposal the NHLPA has made, have had major loopholes to allow the inflationary aspect to continue. What does revenue sharing matter when the league as whole will still be losing massive amounts of money?

My point about Bettman is about credibility. TODAY he said he would help every team to go through the lockout & I believe it , sort of. But I think he said that like so many he said to have a WINDOW OPEN. Today you need our help but if in 4-5 years you CAN'T HELP YOURSELF , well TOO BAD for you.

That's my thought about Bettman (or the B.O.G)

 

[kerrly]

My point about Bettman is about credibility. TODAY he said he would help every team to go through the lockout & I believe it , sort of. But I think he said that like so many he said to have a WINDOW OPEN. Today you need our help but if in 4-5 years you CAN'T HELP YOURSELF , well TOO BAD for you.

That's my thought about Bettman (or the B.O.G)

Thing is, thats just your opinion, and hasn't been stated anywhere before besides the time the NHLPA said the revenue sharing disappeared after year 6 in an unlinked proposal. Where revenue sharing wouldn't be necessary for teams to compete under a $42.5m cap especially if league revenues have increased by that year, which history has shown us, that it is very likely provided on how hard they are hit by the lock-out. But I still agree with you on this point. Stupid move by the owners.

I really think the higher revenue teams are controlling the revenue sharing aspect of this, and I personally don't blame them. First of all, by going through this lock-out they lose their ability to spend at higher rates then the rest of the league. So what may you ask is enticing them to stay the course, large profits for the owners would be my guess. Massive revenue sharing would limit the only bright spot for these teams in this lock-out and in turn, they threaten to change their stance if this happens. All hypothetical of course, but I don't think its too far off either.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Thing is, thats just your opinion, and hasn't been stated anywhere before besides the time the NHLPA said the revenue sharing disappeared after year 6 in an unlinked proposal. Where revenue sharing wouldn't be necessary for teams to compete under a $42.5m cap especially if league revenues have increased by that year, which history has shown us, that it is very likely provided on how hard they are hit by the lock-out. But I still agree with you on this point. Stupid move by the owners.

I really think the higher revenue teams are controlling the revenue sharing aspect of this, and I personally don't blame them. First of all, by going through this lock-out they lose their ability to spend at higher rates then the rest of the league. So what may you ask is enticing them to stay the course, large profits for the owners would be my guess. Massive revenue sharing would limit the only bright spot for these teams in this lock-out and in turn, they threaten to change their stance if this happens. All hypothetical of course, but I don't think its too far off either.

I agree completely. I totally understand why teams wouldn't want to share money with another team, just because that other team happens to do a much worse job of running their team. Besides, it makes me kind of ill thinking of money going from retired Ontario Teachers to Peter Karmonos.

Which is why I always preferred a Luxury Tax system over a salary cap. Voluntary revenue sharing. If you don't want to give money away, don't go over the threshold. Say, one dollar for every dollar over $45 million. How much would that have generated? Using USA Today's 2004 salaries, that would have generated over $200 million in luxury tax money. Even if you were to slash that in half, under the theory that teams wouldn't spend as much on players if they were also taxed, you would still have $100 million in a revenue sharing pool, more than the $80 some odd proposed by the owners. If that is distributed to the bottom ten teams, it would be about $10 million per team. Surely that would go a long way to helping out the small markets, no?

 

[kdb209]

Now even if I grant you all this what good does it do ??

Teams like the Pens and Atlanta and Florida will field teams far below the 55% amount the players are due .. The UFA of the NHL will be sitting out not being employed or playing Hockey and then the NHL at the end of the year when it has made money hand over fist .. turns over some to insure the NHLPA gets is fair share ..

The NHLPA stance is a market place for its players .. You are basically talking payouts and bribes .. How do you address the players not playing and how in the world would the NHLPA fairly divvy up the money to the players. Every single player playing or not will hold out its hands for a top up .. That doesn't fix the system .. That theory works great for owners dividing up profit pool by 30 but not 750 players ..

That's the problem.. IMO ..that the NHL is not addressing ..

The NHLPA wants a system in place that forces the 30 NHL teams to SPEND 55% of League Revenue on player salaries throughout the year .. Not spend 35% and then hand the NHLPA a big 20% check at seasons end and say deal with it..

Do you ever get the feeling you are banging your head against a brick wall.

First of all, nowhere does it say that Pittsburgh & Atlanta & Florida all have to pay 55% - the overall league itself, not each and every team, have to pay the 55% of total revenues (actually 55% is the max, the min is 53% - Owners Feb 2 offer).

Second there is a salary floor that each team is legally required to comit to salaries - based on the formula in the Feb 2 offer that would have come to $30M floor and $40M max cap. In the unlikely event all the teams paid the minimum the total payrol would be $900M or 43% (not the 35% you speculated). And it is rediculous to assume (barring huge legal liabilities for collusion) that all or even a large number of teams would pay the minimum.

Third, why would owners in a competitive league want to intentionally try to keep the salary under the 53% when they know that they will have to tax themselves to come up with the difference (and get nothing in return) rather than pay that out is salary and improve their team (and get more attendance, playoff revenue, etc) in the process.

Fourth, in the event of an underpayment, the league would simply write a lump sum check to the PA and let the PA sort it out. I would assume that the PA would simly prorate and divide among all players as a certain % of salary. Why would any unsigned player who was not under contract, did not play, and was not paid have any claim to any of the money.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Which is why I always preferred a Luxury Tax system over a salary cap. Voluntary revenue sharing. If you don't want to give money away, don't go over the threshold. Say, one dollar for every dollar over $45 million. How much would that have generated? Using USA Today's 2004 salaries, that would have generated over $200 million in luxury tax money. Even if you were to slash that in half, under the theory that teams wouldn't spend as much on players if they were also taxed, you would still have $100 million in a revenue sharing pool, more than the $80 some odd proposed by the owners. If that is distributed to the bottom ten teams, it would be about $10 million per team. Surely that would go a long way to helping out the small markets, no?

I think if the PA had come out with a set of reasonable numbers at teh begining of the season, say placing a Hard Cap between 52-55 Million, with a 1.50 tax down to 47, a dollar down to 42 mill, .50 tax to 37 with all tax money going to teams under 37 or 42 mill we would be heading into the playoff streatch right now. Owners would have gotten a hard cap, players still would have a high end to get to, and big spenders could still spend, but not uber waste into the 60-80 million. Money would have been going back to the owners who could not spend up into the Big Market range.


But the PA asked for too much, and under estimated the owners resolve.

A good tax system, WITH a highish hard cap is the best system IMO. Baseball teams all make money(for the most part) under its revenue sharing. Granted, the Yankees and such spend WAY more than the other teams, but if you placed a hard cap of say between 90-100 million in baseball, you would still get the great revenue sharing and hamper the big teams from Uber Spending...

 

[Phanuthier*]

the owners haven't even discussed what a fair deal would be because of their anti-negotiation tactics

... umm... isn't Gary Bettman just playing Bob Goodenow's game?

Delay, delay, delay...

Its a classics "glass houses" argument.

 

[Buffaloed]

Then you write penalty clauses into the contract that ensure it is in the OWNERS best interest to abide by the terms. No trust necessary.

It's not even a necessary for penalty clauses although they're desirable to resolve anticipated discrepancies. If the owners are in non-compliance, they'll be sued for breach of contract. The owners would be ordered to pay damages and the CBA would be voided if it wasn't brought into compliance. If they can't pay the damages, the league files for bankruptcy if it can't negotiate a settlement, and we're really back to square one. Arguments that the league will propose a CBA that it won't honor are absurd.

 

[kerrly]

I agree completely. I totally understand why teams wouldn't want to share money with another team, just because that other team happens to do a much worse job of running their team. Besides, it makes me kind of ill thinking of money going from retired Ontario Teachers to Peter Karmonos.

Which is why I always preferred a Luxury Tax system over a salary cap. Voluntary revenue sharing. If you don't want to give money away, don't go over the threshold. Say, one dollar for every dollar over $45 million. How much would that have generated? Using USA Today's 2004 salaries, that would have generated over $200 million in luxury tax money. Even if you were to slash that in half, under the theory that teams wouldn't spend as much on players if they were also taxed, you would still have $100 million in a revenue sharing pool, more than the $80 some odd proposed by the owners. If that is distributed to the bottom ten teams, it would be about $10 million per team. Surely that would go a long way to helping out the small markets, no?

A luxury tax does absolutely zero to stop the problems we are having today. A luxury tax like you proposed say at $45m dollar for dollar, still allows for escalating payrolls and salaries, it does not bring the payroll gap down enough, and it won't prevent losses just spread them around the league. The luxury taxes distributed around the league encourage spending by these teams, by handing them money they would not have had to spend. This is a perfect scenario for the players, but will never fly with the owners because of the realistic problems this system provides. A luxury tax without a low hard cap will not fly, ever.

 

[kerrly]

I think if the PA had come out with a set of reasonable numbers at teh begining of the season, say placing a Hard Cap between 52-55 Million, with a 1.50 tax down to 47, a dollar down to 42 mill, .50 tax to 37 with all tax money going to teams under 37 or 42 mill we would be heading into the playoff streatch right now. Owners would have gotten a hard cap, players still would have a high end to get to, and big spenders could still spend, but not uber waste into the 60-80 million. Money would have been going back to the owners who could not spend up into the Big Market range.


But the PA asked for too much, and under estimated the owners resolve.

A good tax system, WITH a highish hard cap is the best system IMO. Baseball teams all make money(for the most part) under its revenue sharing. Granted, the Yankees and such spend WAY more than the other teams, but if you placed a hard cap of say between 90-100 million in baseball, you would still get the great revenue sharing and hamper the big teams from Uber Spending...

I think if the PA would have been willing to open the CBA to new talks years ago they could have gotten a system like the one you proposed above, and even other options like a luxury tax only. Definitely not now. Sorry, your proposal is just a pipe dream. Most you will see from the owners is what has already been put on the table. And you will see less from them now.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

I think if the PA would have been willing to open the CBA to new talks years ago they could have gotten a system like the one you proposed above, and even other options like a luxury tax only. Definitely not now. Sorry, your proposal is just a pipe dream. Most you will see from the owners is what has already been put on the table. And you will see less from them now.

Key word from my post was if they HAD..

Not saying it works now...

If you lower all then numbers by 10 million.... thats more where we are at now.. realisticly..

 

[Mess]

Do you ever get the feeling you are banging your head against a brick wall.

First of all, nowhere does it say that Pittsburgh & Atlanta & Florida all have to pay 55% - the overall league itself, not each and every team, have to pay the 55% of total revenues (actually 55% is the max, the min is 53% - Owners Feb 2 offer).

Second there is a salary floor that each team is legally required to comit to salaries - based on the formula in the Feb 2 offer that would have come to $30M floor and $40M max cap. In the unlikely event all the teams paid the minimum the total payrol would be $900M or 43% (not the 35% you speculated). And it is rediculous to assume (barring huge legal liabilities for collusion) that all or even a large number of teams would pay the minimum.

Third, why would owners in a competitive league want to intentionally try to keep the salary under the 53% when they know that they will have to tax themselves to come up with the difference (and get nothing in return) rather than pay that out is salary and improve their team (and get more attendance, playoff revenue, etc) in the process.

Fourth, in the event of an underpayment, the league would simply write a lump sum check to the PA and let the PA sort it out. I would assume that the PA would simly prorate and divide among all players as a certain % of salary. Why would any unsigned player who was not under contract, did not play, and was not paid have any claim to any of the money.

First off .. The Final offer 42.5 did not have a Hard Cap floor or minimum ..

Second that 42.5 was not player salaries alone ( Performance bonuses, Signing bonuses, buyouts, Injured players, etc) .. So if you give a cheque to the NHLPA at the end of the year for underpayments their is no way they could distribute it .. They want it distributed throughout the year in players contracts ..

Perfecvt example Eric Lindros is a UFA and sits out the year as no one signed him, yet many teams total Salaries are below the 55% amount .. So the NHL sends the NHLPA a underpayment cheque .. How does the Union decide if Lindros gets paid or Sakic gets topped up or 3rd and 4th liners making smaller amounts but playing bit roles as well ..

Think about the Joe Sakic example .. His team Colorado is at the Hard Cap max .. So that would mean that if the NHLPA gave any money to any AVs player then they would be putting team contracts above the 42.5 hard cap, by dividing up underpayment money ..

This system does not work .. You have to have the 55% divided up by NHL contracts throughout the season on players . .Sure if there is a 100K at the end they could give it back to the NHLPA .. but when Pitts, Florida, Atlanta are running Team Salaries at low 20 mils .. then its not 100k but 100 + mil at the end of the season the NHLPA has to split up ...

 

[oil slick]

First off .. The Final offer 42.5 did not have a Hard Cap floor or minimum ..

Second that 42.5 was not player salaries alone ( Performance bonuses, Signing bonuses, buyouts, Injured players, etc) .. So if you give a cheque to the NHLPA at the end of the year for underpayments their is no way they could distribute it .. They want it distributed throughout the year in players contracts ..

Perfecvt example Eric Lindros is a UFA and sits out the year as no one signed him, yet many teams total Salaries are below the 55% amount .. So the NHL sends the NHLPA a underpayment cheque .. How does the Union decide if Lindros gets paid or Sakic gets topped up or 3rd and 4th liners making smaller amounts but playing bit roles as well ..

Think about the Joe Sakic example .. His team Colorado is at the Hard Cap max .. So that would mean that if the NHLPA gave any money to any AVs player then they would be putting team contracts above the 42.5 hard cap, by dividing up underpayment money ..

This system does not work .. You have to have the 55% divided up by NHL contracts throughout the season on players . .Sure if there is a 100K at the end they could give it back to the NHLPA .. but when Pitts, Florida, Atlanta are running Team Salaries at low 20 mils .. then its not 100k but 100 + mil at the end of the season the NHLPA has to split up ...

Why do you keep talking about the 42.5 million offer? That was not a linkage offer. It bears absolutely no relevance to how linkage would work. If you have anything to say about linkage... DON"T DISCUSS THE 42.5 MILLION HARD CAP PROPOSAL.

 

[SENSible1*]

Why do you keep talking about the 42.5 million offer? That was not a linkage offer. It bears absolutely no relevance to how linkage would work. If you have anything to say about linkage... DON"T DISCUSS THE 42.5 MILLION HARD CAP PROPOSAL.

Messenger is just trolling for responses.

He knows the 42.5 M offer was unlinked and had no minimum.

He knows why this happened.

He knows that linkage and escrow work perfectly well in both the NBA and NFL, but likes to pretend there would be major problems in its implementation in the NHL.

Don't give him the satisfaction of wasting the keystrokes.

 

[EricBowser]

Thunderstruck, I can't believe the people in this thread or the originator of the thread.

The NHL's offer is a linkage payroll range from 53-55%.

Which means the NHL & NHLPA place a certain % of revenue and salaries into an escrow account. Upon the completion of the NHL season, the league and players association will sign off on the revenues for the league.

What everyone who is sucking on the NHLPA binky fails to understand and tries to spin like a politician, there is no way a team can spend below the 53% because a team must spend the minimum payroll amount by the end of the season.

Even though I totally disagree with the NHL's revenue-sharing plan, they were offering to make sure each team could make the minimum payroll, which is all that can be expected for any sports league.

Not all teams spend to the max because they want to save room for end of season acquisitions if they are in a playoff race or acquire a player at any point in the season.

The escrow account was offered to protect the players from any team going below the minimum because of a lack of revenues.

Before Messenger or any other Charles Manson like NHLPA follower wants to say I'm drinking Bettman's kool-aid, I've been highly critical of the large market owners stonewalling the revenue-sharing plan, the refusal to compromise on some of the systemic issues, the refusal to issue a deadline in January, and not offering non-linkage before the lockout began.

The reason why I'm still supporting the league is because the NHLPA continues to fight a battle that will cost players money and a career.

53-55% of revenues in the future won't even be close to the NHL's last offer of $42.5 million and until the agents and players realize the money they lost and will never get back in the future should be the responsibility of the NHLPA's leadership, ie, Bob Goodenow, Ted Saskin, Mike Gartner, the labor lawyers, Trevor Linden, and executive player board.

Sure the 288 players who have signed contracts for next season and in the future only have to worry about the 24% rollback, what about the 400+ players in the PA who will be getting scraps compared to the money they could have gotten in February.

Or how about the 200-400 players who will be eligible for the draft in 2005 and the future draftees who have been thrown under the bus, or the 100-200 young players in the AHL/ECHL/Europe who have dreams of NHL careers.

The egos of about 50 players and pro-union lawyers have all but ruined the earning power of over a thousand hockey players, now and in the future.

I hope Bob Goodenow can enjoy his retirement savings because he won't be collecting an NHLPA paycheck beyond December 2005.

 

[oil slick]

Messenger is just trolling for responses.

He knows the 42.5 M offer was unlinked and had no minimum.

He knows why this happened.

He knows that linkage and escrow work perfectly well in both the NBA and NFL, but likes to pretend there would be major problems in its implementation in the NHL.

Don't give him the satisfaction of wasting the keystrokes.

I'll take your advise and not encourage him. I still don't understand why he keeps saying these obviously incorrect things though, since he just comes across as an absolute imbecile.