Trust smokescreen revealed

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by SENSible1*, Feb 16, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    NHLPA Counter Proposal - $49 million cap



    The PA also agreed to a % of the playoff revenues.

    The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

    The PA is 100% in favour of linkage as long as it ensures they will get an increased share of the pie.

    How come they can NOW arrive at a formula of what constitues revenue???

    What happened to the issue of TRUST?????


    There is no way to determine every last penny of revenue.

    Negotiate the artificial formula.

    Negotiate the % each side gets.

    Monitor the results with independant auditors.

    NO TRUST REQUIRED!!!!!

    Of course, this is exactly what the NHL and the pro-owners group have been maintaining throughout this debate. Nice of Goodenow to reveal the smokescreen for what it was...a cash grab, nothing more, nothing less.

    The "trust" issue has been a smokescreen from Day 1. This has always been about the PA getting a bigger share of the pie and forcing the owners to take all the risk.

    Lower risk = lower rewards.

    Stick to your guns Gary.


    P.S. This development certainly puts the "revenue sharing" smokescreen in a different light for any willing to examine the issue with an open mind.
     
  2. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    Not sure why you felt the need to start a thread to say this-you've said it in threads as well.

    In any event, this isn't linkage. Linkage is when the players are guaranteed a percentage of revenues. They aren't guaranteed a percentage of revenues this way.
     
  3. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    7. Indexing of Tax Rates and Payroll Minimums & Maximums

    Linkage.

    Each years tax rates and min/max caps are set by revenues of the previous season.

    Yes, it is not an escrow system where the final # is adjusted based on the current year, but it most certainly provides a real link between salaries and revenues on an ongoing basis.

    Hypocrisy revealed.
     
  4. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    Yeah, well except not. If the owners have an amazing year, and pull in $3 billion in revenues, all that happens is increased cap space. If the owners are stupid and pay out more than they take in, it has no impact on cap space. The cap itself has to rise based on revenues or else they have to define a rate at which it will rise. It's a market.

    Call it linkage all you want, but it's not. The NHL probably prefers this to a system based on a negotiated annual increase. This way, they only have to increase cap space if revenues increase.

    This is not linkage in the same sense as which it was initially used, which involved paying the players a fixed percentage of revenue. Anyone who says it is is either a) driven by an agenda, or b) an idiot.
     
  5. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest


    Of course you are totally skimming over the fact that the PA is now willing to accept that an artificial definition of league revenue can be arrived at and applied.

    What happened to the "trust" issue?
     
  6. The Maltais Falcon

    The Maltais Falcon Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Of course it's linkage.

    "Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year."

    They're saying they want the cap to grow by whatever percentage revenues grow by each year. That's linkage. Well, OK, it's half-linkage. Should revenues fall, the cap stays the same. Sounds like a great deal for the players, who up until last night were philosophically opposed to the notion.
     
  7. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,756
    Likes Received:
    2,578
    Trophy Points:
    232
    Of course they would want it if revenues grow. if it does grow, the owners would probably want to raise the salary cap anyways.
     
  8. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    WHY?????
     
  9. Seachd

    Seachd Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2002
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    The Fail
    Home Page:
    And why shouldn't they be able to lower the cap if revenues go down?
     
  10. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Hmmm....still no reply from Muddy as to why the PA can now "TRUST" the owners enough to arrive at a definition of revenues. Interesting.
     
  11. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,756
    Likes Received:
    2,578
    Trophy Points:
    232

    The big owners would want to at least. They should be allowed for agreeing to this ridiculous salary cap. The owners who make money should be able to spend. If you look at the NFL and NBA, the salary cap never goes down. Plus, players who are going to get paydays byt can't fit under the caps of the better teams in the league, won't make the true moneymakers of the league very happy. Let's say you're a Leaf fan (I don't know if you are or are not.) and Matt Stajan comes out and has a breakout year, in a contract year where he will become a UFA (I know he is young, but this is just an example, plus we don't know what the UFA age will be now). He scores 32 goals and had 40 assists and is in the top 15 in scoring. However because the Leafs are a big money team who spends big money on big players (the fact that they're old or not is irrellivant), because they are Cup contenders every year. They now have to let Stajan walk because they can't get rid of the other guys under contract, holding them up against a cap. Next thing you know, Stajan signs to Florida who is probably at least $14M under a cap, they can fit him under the cap and give him a payday. I reckon you wouldn't be too happy about that.

    A salary cap doesn't make the world go round, and it certainly won't make the league perfect.
     
  12. mudcrutch79

    mudcrutch79 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Big Smoke
    Home Page:
    I don't deny that trust was a smokescreen-the players never wanted a linkage setup. They always wanted a system where owners made decisions on their own. The trust thing was a negotiating tactic; clearly the need for linkage on the part of the owners was BS as well-it's been dumped.

    This isn't linkage though, and that's what I'm objecting to.
     
  13. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    If you think the owners are dying to spend their money on the players to gain a questionable edge on their opponents, then you really need to give your head a shake.

    The whole point of a cap from the big market teams perspective is to remove fan pressure from the equation. They will happily pocket the extra cash and let Stajan go his way, all the while pointing to the cap as having tied their hands.

    Don't confuse the motivation of the big market fans as being the same as the big market owners.
     
  14. GKJ

    GKJ Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2002
    Messages:
    140,756
    Likes Received:
    2,578
    Trophy Points:
    232

    The Leafs knew this lockout was going to happen, would know the result and went out and raised their payroll anyways. They're up over $60M. I bet that's why Goodenow stuck in that loophole where twice they can go 10% over a cap. There are some people who want to spend and are willing to spend and Toronto is one of them. For some teams, winning IS important.
     
  15. Motown Beatdown

    Motown Beatdown Need a slump buster

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Home Page:

    Why not thunder? Have these owners given you any clue in the past they wont overspend? I mean Illitch was on his hands and knees begging Fedorov to sign a 5yr 50 million dollar contract. Everyone knew the lockout was only a year away. Then they sign Whitney, Hatcher and trade for Lang.
     
  16. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    JW and Kim,

    Applying the actions of the owners under the previous CBA, where fan pressure to spend was intense in big markets, to a capped scenario is of dubious value. Even if you are correct (unlikely) and these owners want to waste potential profits, they are in the vast minority amoung the owners and thus will have little to no influence on the final deal.

    If the PA doesn't want to share the risk, then the reward will be lowered accordingly.
     
  17. AlexGodynyuk

    AlexGodynyuk Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Wrong, the salary cap in the NBA has gone down.
    Between 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 seasons, the NBA switched TV contracts. The new contract was backloaded, so revenues dropped and so did the cap (from 42.5 to 40.2).
    But you did bring up another good point. Too many people here think a salary cap is the answer to a team like Ottawa keeping their talent together and competing. A soft cap, maybe, but with a hard cap, definately not.
    Look at the one league with a hard-cap (NFL), how many teams are able to keep their cores together beyond a few years (New England not withstanding). This is what a hard cap does, it creates parity.
     
  18. Steve L*

    Steve L* Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southampton, England
    Home Page:
    Because the players are selfish idiots?
     
  19. Luc Labelle

    Luc Labelle Laine 895

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    HOLY HANNAH!!!!!!!!!

    Everyone... read the indexing carefully. The base year for indexing to be used is 2005-2006 which will take a catastrophic hit on revenues. My prediction is a drop between 30 and 40 percent minimum. They will use this as a base for indexing, if revenues return to where they are at now: take a look.

    30% drop brings you to 1.47 billion in revenues.
    Return to 2.1 gives 2.1/1.47 which would result in approximately a 42% increase in the cap thresholds. The $49M would be $70M cap for revenues which are the same as 2003-2004.

    Goodenow is a disgusting dishonest greedy...
     
  20. SENSible1*

    SENSible1* Guest

    Say it ain't so. We all know that Bettman is the one who isn't being reasonable here. Right?
     
  21. Luc Labelle

    Luc Labelle Laine 895

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    Are you trying to say that the NHL would have been healthy going forward accepting a cap of $70 million dollars before the lockout began. Absolutely not! I'll give Goodenow credit, he is a masterful pickpocket. It is nice that he has made great gains for the players, but everyone will admit the league is suffering financially. If Goodenow manages to sneak this clause by the NHL it will kill the league.
     
  22. ti-vite

    ti-vite Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    94
    That (index year) is pathetic and greedy and a complete disrespect for the game.

    Cancel it already.
     
  23. Luc Labelle

    Luc Labelle Laine 895

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    Good point here you highlighted in parantheses, the indexing isn't the worst thing in the world. Using 2003-2004 would be completely OK, but as you reinforced using 2005-2006 as a base is totally disingenious.
     
  24. txomisc

    txomisc Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Occupation:
    self-employed
    Location:
    California
    Home Page:
    Well lets see. The Salary Cap number is connected to revenue. It's basically positive only linkage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"