The Nhlpa is said to be holding a vote on a salary cap, according to Mr.Blogger!!

[OilerFan4Life]

If thats the case then Eklund=PA mouthpiece

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Maybe PA member DR knows...lol

lol ... i wish.

dr

 

[OilerFan4Life]

In all seriousness maybe this Eklund guy isnt just some 12 year old bum, as I was lead to believe.

 

[s7ark]

No the site has been up for a while. I was at it a month or so ago after stumbling across it off google. always been password protected as long as I have seen.

I wouldn't recommend trying to hack in though, I am sure the NHLPA would bring in every lawyer at their disposal to nail you. So unless we have a 1337 h4x0r here, there isn't much of interest at the site.

If there is a 1337 guy here, PM me with what you've got!! lol

 

[Lady Rhian]

I wonder if they have a message board. Can you imagine the posts? :lol

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

No the site has been up for a while. I was at it a month or so ago after stumbling across it off google. always been password protected as long as I have seen.

I wouldn't recommend trying to hack in though, I am sure the NHLPA would bring in every lawyer at their disposal to nail you. So unless we have a 1337 h4x0r here, there isn't much of interest at the site.

If there is a 1337 guy here, PM me with what you've got!! lol

what is that?

 

[OilerFan4Life]

I wonder if they have a message board. Can you imagine the posts? :lol

Of course they do. I mean its not like they can afford to phone each other long distance now that there not getting paid millions

 

[free0717]

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.

i agree and would like to take it to another extreme. Every team must spend to the Cap!!

The owners wanted cost certainty, well they got it. Gary Bettman said there will be a system that guarantees the player a 1.3 million dollar average. Well the only way to guarantee it is the cap equals the bottom

 

[s7ark]

what is that?

A 1337 h4x0r?

Elite Hacker = 1337 h4x0r in leet-speak.

 

[Morbo]

A 1337 h4x0r?

Elite Hacker = 1337 h4x0r in leet-speak.

You mean socially awkward-speak.

 

[alecfromtherock]

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.

I agree with that quote, would have saved a lot of time if they started in the summer.

Lady Rhian, that would be the funniest message board in the world deserving of a TBS EXTREMELY FUNNY rating.

The harm would already be done if the hacker published or emailed the contents of the site to every Tom Dick and Harry(of hockey).

 

[nyr7andcounting]

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).
Revenues for
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:

Revenues for
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.

Why did the leagues revenues fall so much in the second scenario, but they didn't in the first? Are you saying that if the owners get a cap there won't be any fan support lost, but if the players win there will be? Highly unlikely, either way fan support will be lost and either way the revenues of the league will be the same over the next few years. Botching the numbers to prove your point means.

Besides, this is about the long term for both sides. If the NHL wins a cap now there will likely be one for a long long time in the NHL. If the PA can last than this thing will go to court where the union will likely win, thus stay away from a cap for a long long time. Either way, neither side is only looking at the next 10 years.

 

[PecaFan]

Why did the leagues revenues fall so much in the second scenario, but they didn't in the first?

It's explained right in the post. The first scenario is labour peace, the players accept the cap without a fight during summer 2004 and "lose". There is no lockout, no lost revenue.

The second proposal is labour war (ie, what we actually have), the players tough it out for a couple of years and then "win". The game takes a massive hit, and revenues go down.

The players get more money if the "lose" than if they "win".

 

[quat]

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?

I totally agree. Paying teams this way is no solution at all. This is one of the reasons I'm not really high on a luxury tax... even if there are set limits like gate attendance #'s and the like... some teams (owners), may rather just milk the team for several years and not do anything to try and improve.... just grab the cash. I certainly agree with the pro-NHLPA'ers that some Owners would be more than happy to go in that direction.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Why did the leagues revenues fall so much in the second scenario, but they didn't in the first? Are you saying that if the owners get a cap there won't be any fan support lost, but if the players win there will be? Highly unlikely, either way fan support will be lost and either way the revenues of the league will be the same over the next few years. Botching the numbers to prove your point means.

Besides, this is about the long term for both sides. If the NHL wins a cap now there will likely be one for a long long time in the NHL. If the PA can last than this thing will go to court where the union will likely win, thus stay away from a cap for a long long time. Either way, neither side is only looking at the next 10 years.

The first scenario would have meant no missed games due to a lock out or anything else. In that scenario, revenues would have picked up right where they were last year.

In the second scenario, the players are locked out two years before the owners crack. After two years of lock out, do you think that revenues will be as high as before the lock-out? No, after two years there will be a huge dip. I used a 25% cut of revenues "only", which to me sounded conservative. Also, please note that I did use a bigger yearly growth for the 2nd scenario than the first, because some fans would be won back.

What it shows is that the players will earn less money by winning on all accounts and getting a continuation of this than if they had accepted a cap like the last one suggested by the NHL at the start of the year... Since it's dubious that they won't have to make concessions, the likely scenario #2 will be WORSE than the one I outlined, making the players lose even more. Plus, I didn't even actualize the money figures (which normally should have been done), which would have made the gap even greater in favor of scenario #1.

It would likely take 15 to 20 years at least for the players to recover the money lost during this year and the next one if they were to win on all accounts of the cba. How can you justify this fight, especially since the owners can lock out the players again at the end of each cba, which usually remains for 5-6 years, and ask for a cap again and again and again? Do you really think that if the owners don't get a cap this time they won't try again at every chance they get (cba negociations)?

 

[ti-vite]

Thankyou very much for the link.

Of course, nosey old me went to the NHLPA website, but was denied access. *sigh*

Player: Ti Domi
Password: PASS

or

Brian McCabe
Password: I love Sweden

Mike Modano
Password: Alpo

:lol