Why the NHL wanted to lose this season.

Status
Not open for further replies.

coppernblue

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
384
0
RMU2 said:
and the owners would put money in an escrow so the players were guaranteed their 54 %

just a quick question if the owners are adament that they want to keep guarnteed contracts how is it that they can achieve that the salaries will not be more then 54% of total revenue?
because if contracts are signed for more then one year an owner can not predict what the marketplace will tell for the upcoming years
 

mr gib

Registered User
Sep 19, 2004
5,853
0
vancouver
www.bigtopkarma.com
reckoning said:
Ever since the season was officially cancelled, Melnyk has come across like a completely arrogant a----le. Even though I hate the Sens, i love hockey and usually go to about 6-8 Senator games a year; but when this is over I doubt I`ll go to anymore because I can`t stomach the thought of my money going to someone like him.
ya these owner guys are an interesting lot - we got a bit of a circus going on here in vancouver as well - the season ticket thing - two swindled potential buyers - a controverisal new partner - a silent majority owner and his underling - firing the best gm we had - hmmm
 

coppernblue

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
384
0
owners here in edmonton are doing there job they still answer their phone calls answer emails and have been pretty down to earth
 

BLONG7

Registered User
Oct 30, 2002
35,617
21,950
Nova Scotia
Visit site
The Messenger said:
Lets put this into a little better perspective

The owners claim that player costs are at 75 % ....

So 2.1 Bil X 75 % = 1.5 Bil .. So of the 2.1 total Revenue generated by playing the Owners would have given 1.5 Billion of that to the players to cover Salaries ..

That leaves the NHL owners with 600 Mil ... Now the Levitt report says that the Owners lost between 275 and 300 mil the last season ...

So $600 mil Revenue - 300 Mil in losses = 300 Mil Revenue

Conveniently 300 mil / 30 owners = $10 mil per Owner that they gave up by not playing ..

Now lets see if they gain anything by that 10 mil .. Well ..

1 year off of bad contracts .. One year less to Pay Yashin, Holik, Jagr, Guerin, LeClair, Tkachuk, Cujo, etc etc .. Saves a lot of money on Buyouts ..

Of course the famous Revenue is going down so now the Players have to except a shrinking Market when they agree to a new CBA HARD CAP .. Sure couldn't have used that, had they played the season .. and its not just a 1 year gain .. They gain that advantage for all years of a CBA .. Alone since the season was cancelled they lowered the 42.5 Mil to 37.5 mil Saving $ 5 mil a year.

Right .. So that we they have corrected the market setting the Hard Cap to just 54% of League Revenues of course they still include the 24% rollback of all remaining and existing contracts .. .Lets see .. Originally that made sense.. 75 % players - 24 % rollback = 56% player cost .. Only problem now is that owners can't control themselves so he need a Cap .. But a cap is already at 54 % so why the need for more reduction in Salaries ??

Oh yes lets not forget that the NHL conveniently sets the Hard Cap off to the MAX 54% or 37.5 mil. However everyone knows full well that not all teams will reach the limit in fact maybe only 1/2 will , which really boils down to much less then the 55% the NHL is offering in the partnership , because its the Hard Cap Floor that ensures the players get their fair share not the Hard Cap Ceiling ..

Magically somehow by cancelling the season these Billionaire owners are winning the PR war, as much as 80% of fans support the owners in this dispute .. So they have somehow brainwashed the public to convince them that they need to take the money from the greedy players and put it in their pockets, of course disguising the fact that it was Fans money just being redirected to themselves now and the Hard Cap can only weaken teams and on the on ice product .. But cancelling a season fans will not notice that deterioration since its been so long between games we are none the wiser ..

They have also convinced the majority of the public that its all about making money on a day to day bases , when the real money is really in Franchise values and the buying and selling of them .. The NFL cap tripled Franchise values so the few millions of year to year losses is returned 100 fold when your 100 mil Franchise suddenly becomes 300 mil net worth .. and of course cancelling a season and working towards IMPASSE allow the owners to put their own CBA in place and ensure these huge Franchise profits on resale.. and without being able to use the lost season as amunition how are they ever going to get the NLRB to rule in their favour ??

So those POOR POOR OWNERS really had nothing to gain at all by cancelling a season ..
In your own words, this is one of the more enlightining posts on these boards...Is that you Bob? :sarcasm:
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
coppernblue said:
just a quick question if the owners are adament that they want to keep guarnteed contracts how is it that they can achieve that the salaries will not be more then 54% of total revenue?
because if contracts are signed for more then one year an owner can not predict what the marketplace will tell for the upcoming years

That's the whole purpose of the escrow account.

The owners withhold a percentage of every players salary and deposit it in an escrow account. If at the end of the year, the total league payroll is above the threshold (say 54% of actual
revenue), that excess is deducted from the escrow account and the remainder is returned to the players. In effect, the players get an accross the board pay cut of some percentage. Conversely, if the total salary costs were less than the threshold, the league would make up the difference, write a big check to the NHLPA and let it divvy it up among its members. In the League's Feb 2 offer, the min and max thresholds which governed the escrow mechanism were 53% and 55% and the amout of player salary withheld in escrow was 15%.
 

coppernblue

Registered User
Apr 5, 2005
384
0
kdb209 said:
That's the whole purpose of the escrow account.

The owners withhold a percentage of every players salary and deposit it in an escrow account. If at the end of the year, the total league payroll is above the threshold (say 54% of actual
revenue), that excess is deducted from the escrow account and the remainder is returned to the players. In effect, the players get an accross the board pay cut of some percentage. Conversely, if the total salary costs were less than the threshold, the league would make up the difference, write a big check to the NHLPA and let it divvy it up among its members. In the League's Feb 2 offer, the min and max thresholds which governed the escrow mechanism were 53% and 55% and the amout of player salary withheld in escrow was 15%.

thanks a lot much appreciated i was kinda confused on this topic
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->