No Sir, I Don't Like It (CBA & Lockout Discussion) - Part XI

[Hanklite*]

Any chance the NHL offers 54% or 53% than 50/50 after that in a next proposal?

 

[KINGS17]

So are all the player haters in here done with the players on their teams and only going to cheer on their owners and Gary, or is all the I hate the players talk all childish and bull **** and just an act ?

Nah, I think I can tell the difference from what they do on the ice against each other that deserves respect and praise, and what they are doing now via Fehr.

 

[Riptide]

That would require average league salary to be less than the salary cap midpoint. That doesn't happen.

Apparently has happened a couple times in the last CBA.

 

[wilty00]

I'll be the first to admit I'm not Bob Goodenow's best fan, but at least the guy knew how to count. Right now, Fehr and the NHLPA are making me angry. And it's not blind fanboyism.

I mean, I see a lot of posts going "Oh, you guys are just eating the league's PR!". No, we are not. We know this league. We are currently on an hockey forum, during hockey stoppage, discussing the negociation of a new CBA. Most of us try to read everything that's said about the situation. Not only by the league, or the NHLPA, but mostly by neutral sources, the ones we know we can trust. You're in one of the biggest lumps of Hockey history knowledge of the internets. So cut that crap.

Anyhow, today those trusted sources came out with pretty much the same data. The 3 offerings by the NHLPA were unacceptable. The first 2 are unviable economically, and based on the very shaky premises of constant growth in a struggling economy - something any company that wants to survive needs to avoid doing. The 3rd is literally mathematically impossible - and "running the numbers" would have quickly made that apparent.

On the other side, the League went and grabbed the offer they wrote, tossed it on the internet and went "you go at it fans". And what most people thought is that it was a very fair offer. Both the fans and media. Yeah, the NHL hired a PR master. And that PR master is probably behind the whole "show the fans what you're offering" thing. But it wouldn't have worked if the offer wasn't fair. When you have some of the most talented sport journalists and their crew studying the offer in every angle and coming to the conclusion that it's a good offer that should litterally give a big spark to start negociations again on very solid middle ground, yeah, you're going to root for that side a bit, because you see some good will.

And then when the other side comes and tosses 3 badly thought out offers, you're going to see some bad will.

No one is going to go out and buy a big #1 handfoam with Bettman written on it. We still hate the guy. Look at my city of origin if you need more cred. But at least today we got confirmation that the League and the owners were trying harder than the PA to solve this. Moreover, we also got confirmation that the PA is not trying very hard at all at solving this - and this to us reeks of 2004-2005. We know what it leads to.

So what I see is not love for the league, but hate for the PA.

Damn, I miss Hockey. Yesterday, I had hope. This morning, I had hope. Now I'm back from work, I read most of the thread, and I lost hope. The players need to start understanding the situation and rein in Fehr. This can't keep happening to our game.

Hell of a post.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

When?

Taken from another post

In 2005-06, players received 104.64 percent of escrow and in 2007-08 players received 100.66 percent because the league’s total revenue was higher than expected.

 

[hairylikebear]

It doesn't matter what they THOUGHT. The reality of their contracts was right there in writing, you can't pin that on the owners.

If they don't understand the terms and conditions of the contracts they're signing, why the hell is that the owners fault? That's the responsibility of the player and if he's stupid enough to sign a contract that he doesn't understand then it's only himself he has to blame. Besides, I'm pretty sure that's why these guys have agents - to help them understand all of the business jargon that they aren't well versed in.

Like I said, obviously the players are responsible for the contracts they signed. I believe they're mistaken in trying to collect money that was never promised for them in the first place.

However, the owners are guilty of deceiving the players.

 

[JoeLH]

Any chance the NHL offers 54% or 53% than 50/50 after that in a next proposal?

No, but maybe they agree to some kind of honoring the contracts by a little different approach than in their latest proposal. Remember, they ALREADY agreed to honor the SPC at least for the 12/13 season in their proposal. Players would get the money back over the complete durating of each SPC. And that payments would go under each years 50-50 share (which would'nt be much the longer the CBA goes as we're talking about lost money ONLY from 12/13).

 

[KINGS17]

there have been three hockey lockouts since the last MLB lockout, he knows what hes doing

Yeah, he's trying to wreck the hockey for the majority of NHL fans the same way he wrecked baseball for the majority of MLB fans.

 

[Ari91]

No...if salaries are locked in at the face value of the contracts and revenue continues increasing then the % is going down. But that would require some de-linkage (because it would mean guaranteeing the amount the players are to receive). The question becomes how do you decide what the cap is going to be? If you set a fixed cap (de-linked from revenue) then the only space you have is by players retiring or the teams trading them...unless you get the extra space by linking cap to revenue and assuming that revenue increase - this brings you to the problem re what happens if revenue decreases and you end up with a cap below the "frozen in" payroll that comes from guaranteeing the face value of the contracts.

I actually don't mind a temporary de-linkage to guarantee the face value of the contracts because I think that revenue will continue to increase - however, you have to figure out what to do about the cap...and I think the players have to understand they can't generously agree to also get raises to go along with the guaranteed face value.

I don't think players should be guaranteed existing contracts at face value. I think the concept of paying off existing contracts should be addressed but I do think that escrow should be held in the event that revenues fall. This is the system they've always been paid under. So long as revenues rise, current contracts are bad back at face value.

You bring up a good point about the cap though. I hadn't thought about that but I guess you have to keep the cap the same but it will have its drawbacks for both players and teams but if that's the stipulation that must be met for the players than that's one of the repercussions of it. I'd imagine that players who are set to hit UFA in the next couple of years may be hit the hardest with a cap freeze because it means there isn't any revenue growth that gets added to the player's pot.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Any chance the NHL offers 54% or 53% than 50/50 after that in a next proposal?

The problem is that by reading out of a different book, the NHLPA is pushing the NHL into negotiating against itself (i.e. coming back with increasingly enticing - or decreasingly unenticing - offers until the NHLPA sees on it likes more)...which is actually a fairly clever strategy except Bettman is no fool and is unlikely to play along.

I don't think players should be guaranteed existing contracts at face value. I think the concept of paying off existing contracts should be addressed but I do think that escrow should be held in the event that revenues fall. This is the system they've always been paid under. So long as revenues rise, current contracts are bad back at face value.

You bring up a good point about the cap though. I hadn't thought about that but I guess you have to keep the cap the same but it will have its drawbacks for both players and teams but if that's the stipulation that must be met for the players than that's one of the repercussions of it. I'd imagine that players who are set to hit UFA in the next couple of years may be hit the hardest with a cap freeze because it means there isn't any revenue growth that gets added to the player's pot.

The problem with that is that you're saying if the revenue falls the players share the burden and if it rises the NHL keeps it all...I understand that makes sense - but the NHLPA seems too pigheaded to go along with that. Given that revenue should keep rising (albeit not at the rate the NHLPA claims) I thinking guaranteeing the face value is a pretty sure bet...but

 

[WayneSid9987]

They can't afford to move any further from that offer in terms of HRR.

You're exactly right and they won't.
The players think they will. Big mistake.

 

[Top 6 Spaling]

Bold statement

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I hope the nhl doesn't sit on this , I hope they continue to be aggressive and make new proposals

Why should they when its clear the NHLPA will just ignore them

 

[Riptide]

After an offer is made, the best thing would be to negotiate and discuss, not dismiss and walk away 10 minutes later.

I never said the negotiations lasted 10 minutes.

The players indicated once the details of their proposals were done, there was only 10 minutes of discussion before the NHL left. Not my words and likely exaggeration, but probably closer to the truth.

No you simply implied it.

 

[Crows*]

Interesting from lebruns blog.

The NHL, to its credit, or more precisely NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, came up with a creative mechanism in Tuesday’s offer that tried to address making the players "whole" in their current contracts.

Regardless of whose argument you buy on whether that mechanism flies or not, the bottom line is that the NHLPA doesn’t accept its current definition as any kind of solution.

But here’s the key: The NHL, a source told ESPN.com, reiterated to the NHLPA in Thursday’s meeting that it is willing to play ball on that concept, that it is willing to be more flexible in trying to find a solution to keep players "whole" on their contracts.

 

[WayneSid9987]

Woah!

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.

Wait.
Wut?

I guess he may be right. Don't they only need 8 votes for something to pass in thier meetings or something?

 

[Aqualung]

Hell of a post.

Also misinformed.

The current NHL offer, looks fair on its own, but compared to the previous CBA, shows that only one side is making all the concessions: the players.

 

[opendoor]

Think about it - if you guarantee face value from last CBA, it's essentially playing under the old CBA. Basically it will be a 57/43 split until the bulk value of all existing contracts is expended. So cap space is essentially coming from money resulting from UFA's and retired players every year. Players becoming UFA's represent the end of the 'old-CBA' contracts so you can think of that money being absorbed into the new CBA.

Well I looked up on capgeek and it looks like $400M is coming off the books in UFA's each of the next two years, then $200M the next two after that, then $80M. So it would take $1.3B of the current $1.8B in player salaries off in around 4 years, assuming that once a guy goes UFA his share of that $1.8B is fully removed. After that the number of UFA's on capgeek gets really small.

Assuming 5% growth and the proposed 12.28% 'off the books', $400M would be off the books in each of the first two years. After that, the 12.28% is taking off too much money compared to the contracts being eliminate.

Keep in mind that after four years, you'd still be paying $500M of 'old' salaries league-wide.

In effect the NHLPA's 50/50 deal is the old CBA for a minimum of FOUR YEARS. Not to mention that cap space only comes from UFA's but there should be more players + UFA's fighting for 87% of the UFA dollars that come off the books each year.

Here are the numbers for the players' share under the 3rd proposal assuming a 5% growth rate:

12-13: 57% of $3.2 billion
13-14: 55% of $3.36 billion
14-15: 53% of $3.53 billion
15-16: 52% of $3.71 billion
16-17: 51% of $3.9 billion
17-18: 51% of $4.09 billion


That's an effective rate of 53% over the life of a 6 year CBA.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Woah!

Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.

Why do people continue to follow Walsh on twitter? Guy just spews pro-union junk

If majority of owners wanted these deals they would get done ,, Simple as that

 

[1UP]

Hell of a post.

Thanks.

Came from the heart.

 

[Air Budd Dwyer]

Haha, I knew it!

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1272455

Post #11.

Profit!

 

[no1b4me]

The players' salaries have increased dramatically, but costs of travel, food, etc. have also gone up and owners aren't making money. Even if the players coughed up 13% from their share of the pie they would still be making way, way more than they were in 2005. And the NHL is honouring all existing contracts. What's not to like?

They owners aren't making money because they are either where they don't belong or they are and owner forced to prop up other teams. Delete those teams that a don't belong and HRR goes way up.

 

[Powdered Toast Man]

Here are the numbers for the players' share under the 3rd proposal assuming a 5% growth rate:

12-13: 57% of $3.2 billion
13-14: 55% of $3.36 billion
14-15: 53% of $3.53 billion
15-16: 52% of $3.71 billion
16-17: 51% of $3.9 billion
17-18: 51% of $4.09 billion


That's an effective rate of 53% over the life of a 6 year CBA.

I assume the third proposal would come with a fair share of owner friendly resolutions to the smaller issues in exchange for the higher % and respecting current contracts.

 

[ColePens]

Limit folks.

 

[Aqualung]

No you simply implied it.

I never implied that negotiations lasted 10 minutes, that the post dialogue did (and I'm only quoting exaggerated remarks from Crosby). I think you're reading too much into what I said.