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

[Marc the Habs Fan]

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Tomorrow's CBA session isn't expected to include system issues or division of league revenue. Only the definition of HRR.

 

[Halibut]

How do you know the owners won't move off immediate cuts? Daly has come out publicly and said they can get "creative" if they are negotiating.

I guarantee we would be a whole lot closer if the players would have come back to the owners and said "ok, we will work off your framework, but here is the deal - no immediate cuts - we go down to 50/50 over time". I bet you they would still be in the room talking over that.

Great but you're guarantee means nothing. The owners could have said we're willing to negotiate a deal close to the numbers you suggest and we wont force immediate cuts through rollback or escrow and the players would have been negotiating. From where I stand the owners havent budged any more than the players. It's a two way street, I dont give the owners credit when they havent shown any more willingness to actually negotiate.

 

[Shorthander]

What would happen if the owners proposed a tiered rollback? So, almost like income tax works, any salary over $X dollars were rolled back by X%.

$8.0M - 30%
$6.0M - 25%
$4.0M - 20%
$2.0M - 10%
<$2.0M - 5%

You can play around with the thresholds. I think a lot of players at the lower to middle end of the income scale might be somewhat amenable to this if it helps them play soon.

There is absolutely no way they go for something like this, especially with those thresholds. Why should the Sidney Crosbys of the league take a massive paycut just to subsidize the John Scotts and Biznastys?

 

[MoreOrr]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406504

Gretzky optimistic there will be hockey by January 1.

Have to agree with Gretzky for once. It should almost be a certainty that both sides will do their absolute best to make sure another full Season isn't lost so soon after the last time. Most of these guys, on both sides, already went through that once. I think teams will be on the ice at the latest a fair bit before christmas. We could be looking at as much as a 1/3 of the Season lost, but I doubt more than that. But still! Come on!

 

[MoreOrr]

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Tomorrow's CBA session isn't expected to include system issues or division of league revenue. Only the definition of HRR.

Hmmm, still just defining things... How nice!

 

[danaluvsthekings]

There is absolutely no way they go for something like this, especially with those thresholds. Why should the Sidney Crosbys of the league take a massive paycut just to subsidize the John Scotts and Biznastys?

It works both ways. Why should the Davis Drewiskes or George Parroses, someone with a lot less earning potential, sit so the Perrys and Getzlafs can make massive salaries?

When it really comes down to it, each player has to look at their own circumstances. All this talk about being unified is great but each individual has different circumstances. There's a lot more guys that play in the NHL for 5-6 years and don't make more than $1-1.5 mil in any of those seasons than there are guys sitting on $60-100 million contracts. Those guys can afford to sit out. The 3rd and 4th liners can't.

 

[Iggy77]

Hmmm, still just defining things... How nice!

Well the PA had their chance to stick with the existing definition ....

Still this is a pretty big issue so at least they are talking about something serious for once. I imagine the PA will want a cut of expansion fees etc.

 

[Langdon Alger*]

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris
Tomorrow's CBA session isn't expected to include system issues or division of league revenue. Only the definition of HRR.

Makes sense to me. Can't divide a pie without first figuring out how big said pie is.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

There is absolutely no way they go for something like this, especially with those thresholds. Why should the Sidney Crosbys of the league take a massive paycut just to subsidize the John Scotts and Biznastys?

Why should the rich owners take a paycut just to subsidize the poor ones (i.e., revenue sharing)?

Also, understand that not all of Crosby's salary will be reduced by 30%. The average reduction will be more like 22%.

I just think that might be a useful proposal for the owners if they're dead set on a rollback. You might be able to get a majority of the union to agree to it even if the Crosby's of the world don't like it.

 

[Crows*]

These talks will end.. The league will start to cancel regular season games and the pa will eventually put forth another proposal.

 

[UsernameWasTaken]

Why should the rich owners take a paycut just to subsidize the poor ones (i.e., revenue sharing)?

Also, understand that not all of Crosby's salary will be reduced by 30%. The average reduction will be more like 22%.

I just think that might be a useful proposal for the owners if they're dead set on a rollback. You might be able to get a majority of the union to agree to it even if the Crosby's of the world don't like it.

Because the owners were the ones who insisted that a system be implemented that has resulted in the need to subsidize the poor ones.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

Because the owners were the ones who insisted that a system be implemented that has resulted in the need to subsidize the poor ones.

Who agreed to what in 2005 has little relevance. We face an issue right now, in October 2012, and league and players need to find the best way create a fair and profitable environment in the NHL. I'm not really sure how much revenue sharing that should include, but this constant argument about "the owners agreed to this in the last CBA thus they should pay the price now" is useless.

 

[TCsmyth]

Great but you're guarantee means nothing. The owners could have said we're willing to negotiate a deal close to the numbers you suggest and we wont force immediate cuts through rollback or escrow and the players would have been negotiating. From where I stand the owners havent budged any more than the players. It's a two way street, I dont give the owners credit when they havent shown any more willingness to actually negotiate.

Absolutely right Halibut - my guarantee means nothing. You and I will agree to disagree on which side would actually be prepared to negotiate...peace

 

[JMT21]

Because the owners were the ones who insisted that a system be implemented that has resulted in the need to subsidize the poor ones.

While true.... it's unlikely the owners could have predicted the rise in the cap/floor since the last lockout compared to the slower rise in league revenues.

League revenues have increased 57% since 2004. (1.9B - 3.3B)

The cap ceiling has increased 80% since 2004. (39M - 70M)

The cap floor has increased 150% since 2004. (22M - 54)

Even though leagues revenues are up 57% you can be damn sure most teams didn't see a revenue increase anywhere NEAR 57%.

And if the PA thinks league revenue will continue to increase by 7% each year AFTER a possible lost season....... NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

 

[MoreOrr]

Because the owners were the ones who insisted that a system be implemented that has resulted in the need to subsidize the poor ones.

Seriously?

Come on, if they didn't anticipate that then there was little or no foresight involved. Anyone and their blind dog could've told them that it would be a sure thing that certain teams would profit greatly and thus send the costs for all teams even higher than what many would be able to afford. The League not anticipating that is just stupid... And just perhaps they were... stupid.

 

[Alexander Baigle]

They should just trim the bottom feeder teams. If they got rid of two, four or even six teams, the talent would be more concentrated for the teams that do earn money, and dispersed fans would likely find new teams to cheer for, meaning more money for the remaining teams.

Or move teams that don't make any money into markets where they would. My homer vote goes to anywhere in Canada, but a franchise in Seattle would be really interesting too.

 

[LadyStanley]

These talks will end.. The league will start to cancel regular season games and the pa will eventually put forth another proposal.

Seeing a few pundits tweet that the first week (or two) of the season will be cancelled this week.

 

[Luck 6]

What would happen if the owners proposed a tiered rollback? So, almost like income tax works, any salary over $X dollars were rolled back by X%.

$8.0M - 30%
$6.0M - 25%
$4.0M - 20%
$2.0M - 10%
<$2.0M - 5%

You can play around with the thresholds. I think a lot of players at the lower to middle end of the income scale might be somewhat amenable to this if it helps them play soon.

The problem with this formula is it would hurt the star players the most, but only the star players that are under contract. Next offseason for example, lets assume Getzlaf and Perry hit UFA status. Guys like Weber, Suter, and Parise have all had their lucrative contracts rolled by to about 5.5mil. Do you think Getzlaf and Perry will sign for 5.5mil? Personally, I don't. Star power is too scarce, these guys will still find a way to earn at least in the 6.5mil range. And in that range, do you think they would have received 9mil offers pre-lockout? Unlikely.

 

[Shanahanigans]

Ex NHL Owner on Dan Tencer's show in Edmonton said last week that the first step to ending the lockout is that the owners have to let the players keep their share for this upcoming year (57%) and then the rest of the years could have a reduced share of HRR towards players.

 

[Harry22]

Ex NHL Owner on Dan Tencer's show in Edmonton said last week that the first step to ending the lockout is that the owners have to let the players keep their share for this upcoming year (57%) and then the rest of the years could have a reduced share of HRR towards players.

K.

2012-2013: 57%
2013 on: 50% to 47%

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Ex NHL Owner on Dan Tencer's show in Edmonton said last week that the first step to ending the lockout is that the owners have to let the players keep their share for this upcoming year (57%) and then the rest of the years could have a reduced share of HRR towards players.

Ya that is exactly what I have been touching on in other discussions. The players seem adamant they won't take a cut this year, but seem willing to take a cut after this season.

 

[TheTakedown]

Ex NHL Owner on Dan Tencer's show in Edmonton said last week that the first step to ending the lockout is that the owners have to let the players keep their share for this upcoming year (57%) and then the rest of the years could have a reduced share of HRR towards players.

yeah this is key

I also read somewhere that supposedly 19-29 owners would possibly be in favor of playing ASAP...

 

[Frosty415]

You just defined negotiations. The only way it gets less extreme is if THE NHLPA ACTUALLY RESPONDS.

Until now they have just crossed their arms and shaken their heads like children who don't want to eat peas. Then when the NHLPA asked them..."well okay what do you want for dinner?" they replied "Chocolate cake with marshmallows." And that's what the PA has been doing....since July.

Look, the PA has not acted in good faith AT ALL through these negotiations. They've wanted a lockout since ****ing last year. The NHL wanted to get these talks underway last year and the PA said no, wait til the All-Star break. All-Star Break comes, and they say nooo let's wait til the end of the season. End of the season shows up and the PA says...well...let's wait til the finals.

They met for 10 minutes during...I think it was game 4 or game 6 in LA? PA said we'll talk more this summer. NHLPA says on July 5th ish I believe..okay we're ready to go. NHL makes an offer on on July 14th. NHLPA did not respond until AUGUST 14TH. One month. And it wasn't even a counter offer, it was an offer of their own that took nothing from the NHL offer into consideration. NHL made a second proposal that was less extreme on August 27th.

August 31st NHLPA comes to the table and presents THE SAME EXACT OFFER FROM AUGUST 14TH.

September 13th-15th, NHL makes a THIRD OFFER, even less extreme then the previous two. NHLPA says no thank you and offers THE SAME EXACT OFFER FROM AUGUST 14TH.

And here we are, October 1st, and the PA is still crying "We just want to play."

Reading that you can't tell me that throughout this entire process Fehr and the PA had ANYTHING less than lockout on their minds. They want to stick it to the owners for last time. They have had no intention and made no attempts at working cordially with the NHL Owners since last year so that they can solve their differences on this. **** if they really wanted to "Just play" like all these guys are saying they would have started the negotiations last year so that we could be "Just playing" right now instead of listening to the Krys Barchs of the world cry about how they have to buy Regular Unleaded for their BMW now instead of Premium.

Preach brother, screw the PA.

 

[LarmerSavardSecord]

While true.... it's unlikely the owners could have predicted the rise in the cap/floor since the last lockout compared to the slower rise in league revenues.

League revenues have increased 57% since 2004. (1.9B - 3.3B)

The cap ceiling has increased 80% since 2004. (39M - 70M)

The cap floor has increased 150% since 2004. (22M - 54)

Even though leagues revenues are up 57% you can be damn sure most teams didn't see a revenue increase anywhere NEAR 57%.

And if the PA thinks league revenue will continue to increase by 7% each year AFTER a possible lost season....... NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

League Revenues increased by 74%, not 57%, basically in-line with the ceiling, (and the floor is a function of the ceiling.) That's predictable.

And people can argue about the right growth assumption, but the PA's 7% assumption is defendable as it's equal to what league saw under the previous deal. (I would model 3-5% for the outer years to be conservative, but again, 7% is not unreasonable)

 

[NjDevsRR]

I am hoping to see more of this from State Senators around the country...probably doesnt mean anything but at least it is something.

NJ Senators Lautenberg and Menendez to Bettman and Fehr.

http://www.lautenberg.senate.gov/assets/nhl.pdf