When this tree fell in the forest, who noticed? (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part V

[Marns]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/05/spector_nhl_players_tunnel_vision/

Spector: Tunnel vision

Good little article. Especially liked the following:

It just doesn't make sense (to us, at least) that one side makes 57 per cent and pays none of the bills, while the other side gets 43 per cent, has all the financial risk, and pays all of the costs of running the shop.

Sorry. We've asked. No one can come up with an answer for how that works.

 

[cheswick]

Good little article. Especially liked the following:

Again that's a bit ill informed. Some of the "bills" are paid off before HRR is calculated. HRR is hockey-related revenue less direct costs assocaiated with generating that revenue. So the HRR term as defined in the CBA that the players get 57% of isn't purely revenue, it is revenue with certain expenses deducted from it.

Not that I agree that 57% is a fair number but the owners aren't paying all their bills from the 43% they get, some bills are paid before the split is even done.

 

[marcel snapshot]

Good little article. Especially liked the following:

It just doesn't make sense (to us, at least) that one side makes 57 per cent and pays none of the bills, while the other side gets 43 per cent, has all the financial risk, and pays all of the costs of running the shop.

Sorry. We've asked. No one can come up with an answer for how that works.

I agree that 57-43 makes no sense now, but that's not why there's a stalemate right now IMO. The problem is the insistence on lowering the split coupled with reducing existing salaries.

I'm sure the players are willing to move down from 57%, and would stair-step down to at least 50% over life of a new CBA. Fehr had to have told them that based on where the NBA ended up that's the likely outcome. But they are totally pissed off about the roll back of existing contracts.

The idea that clubs would look them in the eye and say here's how much I'll pay you for the next 3, 5, 7 years and then shortly thereafter say never mind we said we'd pay you that, but we don't want to anymore -- well, that's sort of weasel-ly crap doesn't sit well with hockey guys.

Take the existing salary rollbacks off the table, this thing gets done quickly. But the players won't move on the split of HRR until that happens IMO

 

[Hawkscap]

I thought the owners took the rollback off the table with their 2nd offer..

 

[vyktor]

I agree that 57-43 makes no sense now, but that's not why there's a stalemate right now IMO. The problem is the insistence on lowering the split coupled with reducing existing salaries.

I'm sure the players are willing to move down from 57%, and would stair-step down to at least 50% over life of a new CBA. Fehr had to have told them that based on where the NBA ended up that's the likely outcome. But they are totally pissed off about the roll back of existing contracts.

The idea that clubs would look them in the eye and say here's how much I'll pay you for the next 3, 5, 7 years and then shortly thereafter say never mind we said we'd pay you that, but we don't want to anymore -- well, that's sort of weasel-ly crap doesn't sit well with hockey guys.

Take the existing salary rollbacks off the table, this thing gets done quickly. But the players won't move on the split of HRR until that happens IMO

then why don't they make an offer that moves in that direction?

 

[marcel snapshot]

I thought the owners took the rollback off the table with their 2nd offer..

They did, sort of. My point is they should just unequivocally say "We're going to honor existing contracts" as a show of good-faith to de-toxify the situation and get this moving in the right direction. From news accounts re. the 2nd offer:

The NHL has backed off on its previous demand of a 24 percent cut on all existing contracts - a key component of the deal that ended the season-long lockout in 2005 - but the league is seeking cuts in other ways to make up for that.

"We're not asking for a rollback," Bettman said. "We have said that our proposal - the one that is time-sensitive - would have a phase-in, and while it contemplates the possible reduction in player share, if you use our estimates it would be under 10 percent. If you use the players' association's estimate on revenue growth, it would actually be seven percent.

"When you factor all of that in, it seems to me that having a work stoppage and damaging (hockey-related revenue) long term really doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Fehr conceded that the phase-in does slow the rate the players would absorb cuts, but not in a significant manner.

"The phase-in in the first year would hit the players a little bit less than the full phase-in, it would reduce the share from 57 to 49 rather than from 57 to 47," he said. "While it is accurate in a sense that the owners' proposal does not take quite as much money from the players, somebody might say that they've moved from an extraordinary large amount to a really very big amount."

 

[CerebralGenesis]

I don't think the owners care about de-toxifying the situation. They want what they want and know they will eventually.

 

[Pepper]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/2012/10/05/spector_nhl_players_tunnel_vision/

Spector: Tunnel vision

You missed the part which summarizes the whole mess:

It just doesn't make sense (to us, at least) that one side makes 57 per cent and pays none of the bills, while the other side gets 43 per cent, has all the financial risk, and pays all of the costs of running the shop.

 

[KaraLupin]

If they can't work a deal out in a WHOLE year, what will make a second lost season any more urgent? Everyone involved loses money on the daily, not the season-ly.

 

[mouser]

Post limit, new thread here:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1267567