Meeting over--nhlpa statement may 26

Status
Not open for further replies.

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
Nhlpa

go kim johnsson said:
I understand all this, but it's taken 10 months to decide what's to be included in revenue findings? What the hell has been going on during this time, and why didn't anyone decide to do this back in July?

strategy of obfuscation.
 

DETROIT SKABOY

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
649
0
Livonia Michigan
go kim johnsson said:
I understand all this, but it's taken 10 months to decide what's to be included in revenue findings? What the hell has been going on during this time, and why didn't anyone decide to do this back in July?
i agree
but then none of the sides really seems to care about the fan so didnt really matter to them when they will play next
allthough
losing "sponsers" and the like may speed the process up
 

RLC

Registered User
Aug 7, 2004
622
0
Montreal
The players were willing to a 24% rollback.
What if all these meetings is about, A projected revenue of 1-1.5 for next year. SO establish a lowball and let the player have a mechanisim to move up from the lowball caps as the revenue goes up. Tied to each team with eventually an overall cap of 42mill once the revenues get back to 2.5 billion. A luxury tax can apply at 1-1 if a club spend above the 42mill cap. The tax only starts once the NHL has returned to the 2.5 billion revenue. This will take a few years, and that will take care of current contracts and thats means all teams have that 1-3 year period to readjust all the payroles,players,UFA and rookie issues. 2-3 years from now their wont be any remaining outstanding player contracts, therefore all players will have new contracts adjusted to the new CBA before the LUX TAX is allowed.

There is no way the NHL will give a 42mil cap with no linkage and as we all expect the revenue will take a dive for 2-3 years.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
cleduc said:
Average payroll in NHL 2003-4 = around $44 mil
Dec 9th PA proposal = 24% off = around $33 mil
===============================
10-20% off from revenue loss due to lockout = $27-30 mil average payroll required now.

A floor of $22 mil and a ceiling of $34 mil gets close to those average payroll numbers without having to read a single article !! :)
I am not questioning how the NHL got there .. I am questioning the NHLPA agreeing to it .. and your statement that the FINAL $42.5 ceiling and Zero Floor is a necessarily a better offer ??
 

SPARTAKUS*

Guest
Quote from Daly ( from TSN )

"We continued to make progress this week, but we still have ways to go"

A deal is coming, no doubt about it.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
The Messenger said:
I am not questioning how the NHL got there .. I am questioning the NHLPA agreeing to it .. and your statement that the FINAL $42.5 ceiling and Zero Floor is a necessarily a better offer ??

I reported what an agent stated on the radio. Obviously, the NHLPA has not "agreed" to it formally. Whether they have informally, depends on who you listen to. I also provided with my post the condition of my statement "If true,".

And, yes I feel it is a drop from the $42.5 cap because we all know that many teams will ultimately migrate to a cap number. Even if several don't, enough will that it boosts the average payroll and therefore, boosts the overall payroll expense to the league. In 2003-4, only Nashville was at $21.9 mil - the rest higher. With the 24% cut, only two teams were significantly below $22 mil so a floor of $22 mil isn't that significant (only $13 mil more than the 24% cut on 2003-4).
 

free0717

Registered User
Apr 14, 2004
2,554
87
Old Bridge, NJ
No time for vacations.

This is all BS. I dont understand why they have to take breaks. Bettman, Goodenow and others should sequester themselves to some quiet Mountain Resort and just keep negotiating. This back and forth loses too much time. They only have till June 15th. There is no time for time off in between and what if the deal they cut is sooner, then the draft and free agent signings can start. No time for NHL/NHLPA to vacation.
 

HockeyCritter

Registered User
Dec 10, 2004
5,656
0
OTTSENS said:
Quote from Daly ( from TSN )

"We continued to make progress this week, but we still have ways to go"

A deal is coming, no doubt about it.
Baby step forward are still steps forward . . . . .and honestly, I don't think we'll hear any news of "big" or "major" breakthroughs until the deal is done, signed, and delievered.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
cleduc said:
I reported what an agent stated on the radio. Obviously, the NHLPA has not "agreed" to it formally. Whether they have informally, depends on who you listen to. I also provided with my post the condition of my statement "If true,".

And, yes I feel it is a drop from the $42.5 cap because we all know that many teams will ultimately migrate to a cap number. Even if several don't, enough will that it boosts the average payroll and therefore, boosts the overall payroll expense to the league. In 2003-4, only Nashville was at $21.9 mil - the rest higher. With the 24% cut, only two teams were significantly below $22 mil so a floor of $22 mil isn't that significant (only $13 mil more than the 24% cut on 2003-4).
The biggest flaw in you design to verify the numbers is based on the the Fact that the 22 mil floor and the 54% linkage are both NHL suggested figures not based proven facts ..

That $22 mil could be raised significantly to get to true 54% spending for all teams, and it should be increased depending on the revenue sharing model in place.

The 54% could become 58% in negotiations closer to other sport leagues, which would change the figures again ..

Also the biggest discussion is team by team revenue in these meetings .. You are again basing your theory or supporting what the agent said based on total league declining .. Some markets will decline far greater then others .. A small market team might have its revenue drop 50% while a big market team only 10% due to the lockout .. Since the big market teams weighted impact on total league revenue is greater then the opposite is true in a declining view .. While a lost TV deal might equally effect all markets etc ..

If these meetings intenntions are to prove that exact point then the figures themselves would change again.team by team.

I see these figures simply as the starting point for current discussions ..

I was questioning your "it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot" statement ... That is really is now a hindsight opinion or spilt mike argument .. Last time Goodenow tried that it was successful and the NHL caved and signed his CBA .. On actual results now show that, history this time is different then before, but certainly a point could be made for "IT WORKED BEFORE " .. and also the Goodenow speech expect 18-24 months tells me that he is not all that surprized at that outcome either ..

These leaked ranges do not prove or disprove your statement and you are adding to the PR machine like everyone else seems to ..compounded further by singling out only Goodenow .. The committee and they NHLPA during their own meeting came out supporting the NHLPA as a whole .. So they have just as much responsibility for a bluff that may not have succeeded last year ..
 
Last edited:

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
cleduc said:
Darcy Tucker's agent was on Leafs Lunch. He said the cap floor is at $22 mil and the cap ceiling is at $34 mil and they're discussing linkage. If true, it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot.
IMO, this agent is full of it. Show me a credible source that says there's any sort of cap number or percentage on the table right now.

All credible sources indicate that the negotiations are at a point where a workable cap structure has been presented by the PA, that this structure depends on team-by-team financial data, and that the two sides are discussing that financial data so that the structure can be further negotiated.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
The Messenger said:
The biggest flaw in you design to verify the numbers is based on the the Fact that the 22 mil floor and the 54% linkage are both NHL suggested figures not based proven facts ..

That $22 mil could be raised significantly to get to true 54% spending for all teams, and it should be increased depending on the revenue sharing model in place.

The 54% could become 58% in negotiations closer to other sport leagues, which would change the figures again ..

Also the biggest discussion is team by team revenue in these meetings .. You are again basing your theory or supporting what the agent said based on total league declining .. Some markets will decline far greater then others .. A small market team might have its revenue drop 50% while a big market team only 10% due to the lockout .. Since the big market teams weighted impact on total league revenue is greater then the opposite is true in a declining view .. While a lost TV deal might equally effect all markets etc ..

If these meetings intenntions are to prove that exact point then the figures themselves would change again.team by team.

I see these figures simply as the starting point for current discussions ..

I was questioning your "it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot" statement ... That is really is now a hindsight opinion or spilt mike argument .. Last time Goodenow tried that it was successful and the NHL caved and signed his CBA .. On actual results now show that, history this time is different then before, but certainly a point could be made for "IT WORKED BEFORE " .. and also the Goodenow speech expect 18-24 months tells me that he is not all that surprized at that outcome either ..

These leaked ranges do not prove or disprove your statement and you are adding to the PR machine like everyone else seems to ..compounded further by singling out only Goodenow .. The committee and they NHLPA during their own meeting came out supporting the NHLPA as a whole .. So they have just as much responsibility for a bluff that may not have succeeded last year ..
"If true", a $34 mil cap means that the average payroll can't exceed that and will likely be well below it based upon all the other discussion going on (i.e. reportedly team by team caps). Therefore, it is a significant drop from the $42.5 proposed in February where average payrolls might have exceeded $34 mil.

The NHL is going to take a revenue hit from the lockout. There is absolutely no way there will be an agreement where the NHL is going to absorb 100% of that hit and the players 0%. There's no deal if that is what Goodenow is proposing.

The players are going to take another hit due to the revenue drop from the lockout of around 10-20%. They'll take a bigger hit if there is no deal by June 15th or so. And they're riding the wave of a 100% hit in 2004-5 so we already have precedence for stupidity. The chances of the players getting a better deal than what the NHL offered in February are between extremely remote and the much more likely none. There simply isn't enough money from the projected revenue losses due to the lockout - which is what they were told was going to happen before the cancellation and by most accounts is happening now.

The body of the NHLPA philosophy of "no cap" and "no linkage", etc has been hacked to pieces and lies dismembered and strewn over the battle field of CBA negotiations. The war is basically over with both sides suffering heavy losses. But if the NHLPA thinks they’ll get as good a deal as what was offered to them in February, they may need to sit another year to get their heads around why that can’t happen. And after that year, the NHL offer will be that much less again. Hopefully, by that time, they will have caught on to the realities of their circumstance: the pie is much smaller.
 

Kritter471

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
7,714
0
Dallas
RangerBoy said:
Unless Bettman and Goodenow are planning a meeting for Friday,the next meeting won't be until Tuesday the earliest.Monday is Memorial Day

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

My take on why the meeting today was so short is the two sides finished up their evaluations of the team's financial situations. So if the two sides are now (ideally) working working from the same set of information, four to five days to evaulate those in the context of their previous offers sounds about right.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Kritter471 said:
Is that necessarily a bad thing?

My take on why the meeting today was so short is the two sides finished up their evaluations of the team's financial situations. So if the two sides are now (ideally) working working from the same set of information, four to five days to evaulate those in the context of their previous offers sounds about right.


Yeah...I agree. As much as we want things to move quickly, if there are no more meetings until Wednesday again then that's probably not a bad thing.
 

Levitate

Registered User
Jul 29, 2004
30,948
7,655
again i get the feeling people are just looking purely at the $$ of the february proposal compared to what's being tossed around now when they say the NHLPA could have gotten a better deal and won't get one now.

if the CBA was only for 1 year, yeah maybe so. but it's not. a deal that looks good $$ wise at first glance could turn out to be crap 5 years down the road when all the other little "hidden" factors come into play.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
Kritter471 said:
Is that necessarily a bad thing?

My take on why the meeting today was so short is the two sides finished up their evaluations of the team's financial situations. So if the two sides are now (ideally) working working from the same set of information, four to five days to evaulate those in the context of their previous offers sounds about right.

Sure. But not many people here understand that taking a break after consuming all that info is a good thing. It allows both sides to digest the material, ask their own questions among themselves, and MOSTLY (as levitate stated) look how the info/#'s would play themselves out in the future - the most important part.

The video game mentality around here that seeks marathon sessions with instant gratification of a deal is a little unrealistic.
 

Jarqui

Registered User
Jul 8, 2003
1,966
83
Visit site
blitzkriegs said:
The video game mentality around here that seeks marathon sessions with instant gratification of a deal is a little unrealistic.

I agree. They exchange info or proposals, go away and crunch the numbers. Then they dream up five counter alternatives and crunch the numbers on or discuss those while finding out that they're missing info to do three of them. They go back, get that "missing" info and present two of the concepts, etc.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
cleduc said:
"If true", a $34 mil cap means that the average payroll can't exceed that and will likely be well below it based upon all the other discussion going on (i.e. reportedly team by team caps). Therefore, it is a significant drop from the $42.5 proposed in February where average payrolls might have exceeded $34 mil..
The Hard cap figure is a Owner thing .. The players are concerned about the systemic issue that dicated hoiw they personally are effected the Hard Cap just stops teams from over spending as a whole.. If you are judging a CBA by the highest Hard Cap number ever presented then you are fooling yourself ..

A CBA with a lower Cap , with meaningful revenue sharing, Arbitration rights, lower UFA, better Qualifying offers trumps the hard cap every time ..


cleduc said:
"The NHL is going to take a revenue hit from the lockout. There is absolutely no way there will be an agreement where the NHL is going to absorb 100% of that hit and the players 0%. There's no deal if that is what Goodenow is proposing. ..
A 24% rollback off old contracts and year losses in wages I wouldn't call insignificant from the NHLPA side .. I say that was a BIG revenue hit ..


cleduc said:
" The players are going to take another hit due to the revenue drop from the lockout of around 10-20%. They'll take a bigger hit if there is no deal by June 15th or so. And they're riding the wave of a 100% hit in 2004-5 so we already have precedence for stupidity. The chances of the players getting a better deal than what the NHL offered in February are between extremely remote and the much more likely none. There simply isn't enough money from the projected revenue losses due to the lockout - which is what they were told was going to happen before the cancellation and by most accounts is happening now...
Lets wait till we see the final CBA before we rush to judgement and put everything you are typing in to law .. Lots can still happen in-between..

Don't count your chickens before they are hatched ..


cleduc said:
"The body of the NHLPA philosophy of "no cap" and "no linkage", etc has been hacked to pieces and lies dismembered and strewn over the battle field of CBA negotiations. The war is basically over with both sides suffering heavy losses. But if the NHLPA thinks they’ll get as good a deal as what was offered to them in February, they may need to sit another year to get their heads around why that can’t happen. And after that year, the NHL offer will be that much less again. Hopefully, by that time, they will have caught on to the realities of their circumstance: the pie is much smaller.
The biggest advantage that the Owners have is that it is easier to keep 30 owners unified then 750+ players. Goodenow would take this fight far further then the NHLPA is willing to go ... Another lost season for the Owners is going to be very very painful on their pocket books as well .. Last year they collected sponsors, and endorsements and season ticket money, luxury suites etc from the fans and public and then locked everyone out and lived off that money. The Slowly paid it back as needed .. This year no one is falling for that same smoke and mirrors .. Everybody wants to see the players on the ice before the money will be flowing in to the owners .. That is the pressure they are facing now .. Again no one 100% knows that the owners would crack first if both sides went into a second year as you say .. The 11 teams that money even under the old system will also be putting tremendous pressure on Bettman to throw in a bone and as such until the ink is dry anyone who pretends they know the exact final ending is new to collective bargaining
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
cleduc said:
I agree. They exchange info or proposals, go away and crunch the numbers. Then they dream up five counter alternatives and crunch the numbers on or discuss those while finding out that they're missing info to do three of them. They go back, get that "missing" info and present two of the concepts, etc.
If you believe that then doesn't that contradict you earlier position "If true, it doesn't make Goodenow's decision to turn down the NHL February offer look too hot."

Which is what I have been trying to convince you of all along??.. That without the ending its too early to close the polls and decalre anything.

For all we know this is just posturing on the part of the NHLPA.. Just coming to meetings as requested in hopes of avoiding IMPASSE and to perhaps gain a little leverage with unsigned draft picks and RFA without qualifying offers becoming CBA negotiated issues in a months time, that can be traded for concessions for a better NHLPA CBA .. I wouldn't put that past Goodenow 1 bit .. This is the off season and players are not missing contract money now .. This is the time that is the easiest to keep them unified .. and as September approaches that changes.

This is not over yet .. Remember the NHLPA tossed a 30-50 range on the table and got a 22 -34 range back .. The NHLPA floor is the NHL's ceiling.. SO I wouldn't say we are too close based on that, and that is all anyone outside of the bargaining group has to go on..
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Some one explain to me again why these floor/ceiling numbers mean all that much. I may feel like an idiot for asking once I see the answer, but right now I am wondering if there is a 54% linked to revenue agreement (I know, there is not one, but assume that we get there for this question) then I could see vicious arguments over what constitutes revenue, what legit expenses there are, etc etc, but not about Floor/celing numbers. At the end of the day don't the players end up with 54% no matter the cap/ceiling? Even in year one they will get a rebate back after revenues are calculated, that is how the NFL does it I think.

So where am I going wrong in thinking that the Floor/Ceiling numbers mean next to nothing?
 

SENSible1*

Guest
Anyone else looking forward to watching Messenger go into "spin overdrive" when the actual terms of the CBA are announced?

Pure entertainment.
 

blitzkriegs

Registered User
May 26, 2003
13,150
1
Beach & Mtn & Island
Visit site
Thunderstruck said:
Anyone else looking forward to watching Messenger go into "spin overdrive" when the actual terms of the CBA are announced?

Pure entertainment.

I hope he puts as much effort into his homework as this board. His parents would be proud... :propeller
 
Last edited:

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
I can hardly...

Thunderstruck said:
Anyone else looking forward to watching Messenger go into "spin overdrive" when the actual terms of the CBA are announced?

Pure entertainment.

...wait:)
 

AM

Registered User
Nov 22, 2004
8,463
2,512
Edmonton
floor/ceiling...

Jaded-Fan said:
Some one explain to me again why these floor/ceiling numbers mean all that much. I may feel like an idiot for asking once I see the answer, but right now I am wondering if there is a 54% linked to revenue agreement (I know, there is not one, but assume that we get there for this question) then I could see vicious arguments over what constitutes revenue, what legit expenses there are, etc etc, but not about Floor/celing numbers. At the end of the day don't the players end up with 54% no matter the cap/ceiling? Even in year one they will get a rebate back after revenues are calculated, that is how the NFL does it I think.

So where am I going wrong in thinking that the Floor/Ceiling numbers mean next to nothing?

so that the 54% can be achieved.

If 10 teams at the floor and 8 teams at the ceiling... etc.

If 10 teams were significantly below the floor... haveing the other 20 at the ceiling wouldnt achieve the 54%.

One other factor, have the floor so that can weed out un-performing markets.

If you cant make the floor payroll, its time to try a new market.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->