This season will be a 70.2m cap. Next season will be a fixed cap (60-65m). Year 3 will be 50% of HRR + make whole. There's really no way to determine what the cap for year 2 should be due to missing the majority of this season. So they set a fixed number, and go from there.
Lockout VI:ve la Revolution!
- Thread starter Hank Chinaski
- Start date
- Status
This season will be a 70.2m cap. Next season will be a fixed cap (60-65m). Year 3 will be 50% of HRR + make whole. There's really no way to determine what the cap for year 2 should be due to missing the majority of this season. So they set a fixed number, and go from there.
The owners have offered $300mil in Make Whole; that's too much already. The players are essentially asking to make that $450mil. The owners shouldn't have gone beyond $250mil.
However, the fact that so many big market teams have been successful lately has really boosted revenue and therefore the cap. Kings, Bruins, Canucks, Hawks, Flyers, Penguins, Wings. This is the reason the cap is so inflated right now.
They've been discussing this for a while... perhaps there was a simple misunderstanding... wouldn't be the first time.
Holy crap! You mean the owners upped it again... After just 5 days to a week ago saying that the Make Whole (at $300mil) was one issue not open to negotiating higher.
When are these guys going to learn??? They keep saying that certain points aren't open to further concessions and then the go ahead and concede further. The players must think the owners are play-doh, hard play-doh but play-doh nonetheless.Holy crap! You mean the owners upped it again... After just 5 days to a week ago saying that the Make Whole (at $300mil) was one issue not open to negotiating higher.
Yes, but there's things they want from the players. They don't really have much of a choice. Either play ball, and horse trade, or take your ball and go home. Remember, the NHL also needs to be looking at the long game here. Giving up an extra hundred million, hell even 150m (spread out over a 8-10yr deal) is peanuts when you consider what they're getting. Once they get player contract limits (like when they got the cap) that will never go away. So next CBA, they'll have a lower split, cap and contract limits. Means they can focus on other things. And if all it's going to cost them is some money, then they're better off for it.
The PA fire their guy every 1-2 yrs...maybe that tells you something?
This is a 50-50 blame game...both guys are at fault...
NewBoysClub97*
All-Star
Spector's Hockey @SpectorsHockey
#NHL player agent Andy Scott claims a "few trusty sources saying NHLPA - NHL deal will be announced tomorrow." We'll see...#NHLCBA
#NHL player agent Andy Scott claims a "few trusty sources saying NHLPA - NHL deal will be announced tomorrow." We'll see...#NHLCBA
Not according to Allan Walsh. Things went severely south today, from what he says.
Holy crap! You mean the owners upped it again... After just 5 days to a week ago saying that the Make Whole (at $300mil) was one issue not open to negotiating higher.
As has been pointed out, this whole process is about how much the players are going to give up. There are no concessions from ownership's side, only bigger or smaller takeaways.
Yes, they don't want the whole Season to be lost, that's what they want. And they're going to end up giving up enough concessions that it won't hardly have been worth missing even half the Season and then having to live with still an extremely malfunctioning CBA for another 7 to 8 years.
Heaton
Moderator
Not down here. Mr. Vinik and Mr. Yzerman determine a budget. Mr. Vinik then leaves the GM job to the GM. The only time SY has to go to Mr. Vinik is if he wants to sign/trade for someone whose salary will take them over the current budget. Mr. Vinik knows he's not a hockey operations guy and said publicly he's not involved in any hockey decisions, he leaves those up to the people who know what they're doing.
Sounds like pretty standard negotiating, but I doubt it has anything to do with calling the PA's bluff on the DOI "deadline."
Exactly. Both sides have been tossing offers back and forth for days now, and every one of them has changes here and there. That's the process.
Wait - is that the overall total, or are you saying the league increased its make whole figure by $100M? I'd not heard that.
That's what surprises me too. By those figures, the owners already bettered their $300mil offer, but the players want even another $150 on top of the owners increase from $300 to $400mil.
Just how many Seasons does a $400mil postpone the 50/50 by? The figure being bounced around was that $300mil would postpone the 50/50 until after the 4th year. With what the players are trying to get now... You can damn well forget 50/50 until almost the end of this CBA (whenever that will be based on when the hell it's going to start).
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
So effectively you're saying we have two years of delinkage. So let's just toss some play numbers out to get a sense of what this might really mean. Correct me anywhere you think a better figure might apply.
Let's assume that NHL revenues get depressed about 5% this year, but that they rebound back to 2011-2012 levels by next season. Let's assume we also get an 8 year CBA.
For year 1, you pay the 70.2M figure, meaning 57% of last year's revenues, but now maybe we're looking at 5% less revenue to pay the same fixed figure. That would mean that you would pay 60% of potential HRR in year 1. Of course, it's only 58% of a season (presuming a 48 game schedule).
For year 2, revenues grow back to pre-lockout levels, meaning you assume 5% growth offsets the 5% drop you saw because of the lockout. Let's assume they settle at $62.5M for the new cap. That would be akin to paying 51% of HRR.
Years 3-8, let's assume 4% growth in the game - healthy, but not as fast as it was going the last six years (which, if I had a hunch on the matter, I would bet was unsustainable anyways). Players salaries grow from 1.7B in year 2 (presuming teams spend or don't spend to the cap in about the same proportions as they do now) to 1.76, 1.83, 1.90, 1.98, 2.05, and $2.14B in years 3-8, respectively, totally $11.6B. Now add your $300M in "make whole" money. If we assume 11.6B = 50% of revenue, then 11.9B would represent 51.3% of HRR over the same period.
So we have 51.3 over six year, 51 for one year, and 60 for 58% of one year. That would mean that over the lifetime of the CBA, the NHL would be paying 51.9% of HRR.
Of course, if you presume any slower growth in the game or a more appreciable drop in revenues thanks to the lockout, it could be larger. But I think it's just helpful to try and consider what this really means when you're talking about accepting some delinkage and some make whole. It means we might be closer to talking about 52% for players.
MOD
Last edited by a moderator:
It's all about risk. If HRR grows relatively well, then the NHL won't really lose as much on the basis of current share/HRR levels.
If they don't grow and we're only merely back to the current HRR, then your number crunching is close to the mark.
To be fair and accurate, the relative share needs to be calculated at various growth levels and then compared to the baseline.
If they don't grow and we're only merely back to the current HRR, then your number crunching is close to the mark.
To be fair and accurate, the relative share needs to be calculated at various growth levels and then compared to the baseline.
mouser
Business of Hockey
Yeah, I was making the point that not only was there an expectation that the cap would be reduced but the NHL was advising teams not to expect a salary roll back to help them cope with a lower cap as happened in 2005.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,444
- 11,483
Your scenario is extreme, but let's assume that the cap drops and there are no buyouts. A team in Montreal's position would have to trade higher priced players to teams willing to take them for less expensive players and likely have to pay a premium in draft picks or prospects to make it happen.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,444
- 11,483
sepHF
Patreeky
- Feb 12, 2010
- 15,910
- 3,896
I wouldn't take what he says too seriously.
Donald Fehr : Oh yes, the deal is very close.
mouser
Business of Hockey
At a minimum you need to subtract the amount of another team making the finals. Using your NJ example that would mean a Leafs run to the cup finals would generate an extra $28m or less than $500k per team on the cap.
haseoke39
Registered User
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,938
- 2,491
For sure, growth level determines whether we're talking about 50.5% of HRR or 52.5% of HRR whenever we're talking about the impact of delinking part of it. I don;t have the energy to crunch a whole ton of numbers. I put out an estimate with all the caveats of my assumptions, people can take it for what it is.
Bourne Endeavor
Registered User
Exactly. Even in a less extreme example, I do not agree with a system that effectively punishes fans more than teams simply because a good number would essentially be throwing away their players just to scramble under the cap. Edmonton, for instace, has waited long enough to be relevant, yet would barely make a $60M cap after Eberle and Hall's contracts kick in, even with two buyouts.
I know. Just pointing out that one can make it look as dire or as favorable as one chooses. If one were to attempt to do this academically, you'd need a base, best and worst case scenario at a minimum.
- Status
