Discussion in 'The Business of Hockey' started by NewBreed19, Jan 22, 2005.
Who's Mr. Blunder?
I meant , Mr.Blogger.
This makes sense, but will Bob let the results be known? Will he do what the majority want? I think most of the players are ready to use their common sense, and they will have to let their pride take a back seat...
Voting on a cap or on revenue-salary linkage? Voting on a cap means they will accept a hard cap that's high....but that could be a good thing being that the most sensical solution, and the one that has come out of those meetings in the form of rumors, is a hard cap after a luxury tax thershold. If they are voting on wether or not to accept that hard cap, after the luxury tax, than this could be a good thing.
I think that it is said to be a vote on a cap. I think that if this is true, the union will use this to decide their fate.
I thought of a concept last night, that may be a good thing to work with.
Have a hard cap around.. $36-38M.. But for every team that has a payroll under say around $30-31M gets a bonus. I don't how big of a bonus. Don't want to make it to small, or too big.
I think maybe my numbers are off ($36-38, $30-31), and need some chaning, but hey.
So encourage owners not to spend money on their teams. Whats the motivation to put money into a team and make it a winning team when you get a bonus for staying under a certain amount?
Well you don't have to have the Hard Cap. I just think it would encourage teams/owners to not waste money on that one player. I didn't say it would work or anything. Also I never said it would be a HUGE bonus. I think it should be not too small so it doesn't mean anything, and not too big that it will stop motivation for owners to get a winning team.
Well to me it seems like it would encourage teams to not resign key payers just to stay under that minimum to get a bonus. If the players are going to agree to a cap, there has to be minimum spending by clubs, not clubs getting a bonus for being cheap. I get what youre saying by teams being encouraged not blow their salary on one player, but to me it seems like a team would let a few players go just to earn a bonus.
Well, it all depends on the amount of the bonus. Thats why the bonus really has to be just right. I think with the bonus.. The PA gets a higher hard cap, and the owners have somewhat of a motive to not spend the MOST they possibly can.
Maybe it doesn't have to be a bonus for staying under a certain amount in payroll. But a bonus for making money that year?
Is Mr. Blogger someone important? Can I read about him somewhere?
Hopefully enough players have the wits to give the NHLPA execs the mandate of negociating the best hard cap possible (by voting they'd accept a cap).
I'll give one last elaborate effort to let everyone understand how the players have to accept a cap or lose even more money.
Let's say the players would have had to negociate a cap at the start of the season to play this season and they would have gotten a deal at 54-58% of revenues (as salaries). Let's say they would have gotten an average of 57% of the revenues (as more teams will be closer to the upper treshold). Avg raise of revenues at 3% per year (very conservative, as if they develop the sport they might get a lot more).
2004-05 season: $2.1B x 57% = $1.2B
2005-06 season: $2.16B x 57% = $1.23B
2006-07 season: $2.22B x 57% = $1.27B
2007-08 season: $2.29B x 57% = $1.31B
2008-09 season: $2.36B x 57% = $1.34B
2009-10 season: $2.43B x 57% = $1.39B
2010-11 season: $2.50B x 57% = $1.43B
2011-12 season: $2.58B x 57% = $1.47B
2012-13 season: $2.66B x 57% = $1.51B
2013-14 season: $2.74B x 57% = $1.56B
Total over the next 10 years: $13.71B
Now, let's say the players tough it out to get a deal their way. In order to achieve so, they need to sit for 2 years. Let's look at the numbers for the next 10 years at 70% of the revenues going to them on average (which will never happen). Also, let's take a conservative approach and assume that the revenues of the NHL would still be 75% (of this year's) after two years of lockout. We'll use a growth of 5% per year since there will be fans to take back. That's a pretty optimistic scenario:
2004-05 season: $0
2005-06 season: $0
2006-07 season: $2.1B x 75% x 70% = $1.1B
2007-08 season: $1.65B x 70% = $1.16B
2008-09 season: $1.73B x 70% = $1.21B
2009-10 season: $1.82B x 70% = $1.27B
2010-11 season: $1.91B x 70% = $1.34B
2011-12 season: $2.01B x 70% = $1.40B
2012-13 season: $2.11B x 70% = $1.48B
2013-14 season: $2.22B x 70% = $1.55B
Total over the next 10 years: $10.51B
As you can see, it's a battle the NHLPA can't win. They have already lost a lot of money so far... for nothing! Even if the NHLPA finally "wins" on all accounts, the players will still have lost a lot of revenue, and there's no telling the owners wouldn't ask for a cap later anyway. Plus, I doubt that after two years of sitting, the players could get a deal such as the one in the 2nd "positive" scenario.
So, I ask again, why are the players blindly fighting this losing fight? It just DOESN'T make any sense for them! Don't you think the NHL have run the numbers and came to the same conclusions, that they'll eventually get the players because they're making massive losses "fighting for principle"?
If I was the financial councellor of any player, this situation would get me completely mad!
Edit: Even if the players can salvage $500M by playing elsewhere during the lockout (2 years), they're still way behind in terms of total revenues and are losers anyway.
Its a shame its 6 frigging months too late, if they held the vote back in the summer then we might be halfway through a good season by now.
Yeah, I've been wondering who the heck he is, too...........
Mr. Blogger = Eklund:
Thanks Top Shelf. Yeah, I've read some of the stuff on that website from various links on here in different threads. Interesting about the secret vote.........
Anyone visit www.nhlpasource.com ? I went, and it asks for players to login.....maybe he's on the level with this one.....anyone here know of the site before Eklund mentioned it?
Heck, Eklund could even be a player pretending to be something else... It almost seems he has access to www.nhlpasource.com.
Edit: His last message on his blog almost look like instructions for players.
Thankyou very much for the link.
Of course, nosey old me went to the NHLPA website, but was denied access. *sigh*
I went to, and got the same thing.......,
Ive never heard of that site before. Has anyone ever tried going on it before today, and did it require login then as well? Maybe PA member DR knows...lol
Nope, today was the first time that I myself tried going there.......
I suppose someone could do some research and start by calling this number:
"If you are experiencing any technical difficulties, please call the NHLPA Helpdesk at 1-800-XXX-XXXX (Extension XXXX)."
Yeah, I noticed that too! The funny thing is, when I first went to that hockeyrumors page, I thought that he was telling us the fans, to go there and vote too, so I went to the nhlpasource website. Of course, then I went back to hockeyrumors and realized that I'd read it wrong, but it DOES sound like he's giving out instructions. Weird.........
Separate names with a comma.