HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   Please tell me whats wrong with my ideas (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1259941)

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 04:34 PM

Please tell me whats wrong with my ideas
 
I posted over on the business board the following, but theres a lot of bickering going on and it garnered no responses:
http://i.imgur.com/uWYrW.jpg

I am wading into this conversation having been a close observer of the public negotiations, but an infrequent visitor to the commentary section of HF boards so do not kill me if I am covering well beaten horse but I just opened a spread sheet and did a bit of monkey math:

I've taken a conservative growth %, 4%, far below the 7% average since the lockout and applied it to this.

Whats to stop the two sides from agreeing to locking the cap out where it is, only ever increasing it once the owners share has naturally gone beyond 50% of Revenue (say they settle on a 51-49 split)?

The PA/League could agree that if the growth failed to meet expectations, then there would be a slight reduction of player salaries through escrow to meet % targets year over year.

My spreadsheet predicts by year two or three of a new cba, the owners would raking in the lions share of revenue with just over half the average growth since the lockout.

This has seemed to me to be the obvious deal from the get go. On principal, I agree 100% with the players that they should not be expected to fork over 10-25% of their salaries negotiated in good faith with the owners simply because they want to. That would invalidate the whole negotiation process, and if I was an agent, I'd whip that out every time someone asked for a home town discount. Its a bad road to go down (again)

If any kind of meaningful revenue sharing were to be brought in as part of this deal, it would be a huge victory where no teams or players lose out completely. I realize as I'm writing this that it might too closely mirror the PA's own ideas, and wont give the owners the "immediate" fix for broke teams like they desire, but a good deal should leave both sides with work to do and I think they meet nicely in the middle. I dont know.

Rip apart my ideas, go go go!

y2kcanucks 09-14-2012 04:36 PM

Edit: nvm. Misread your thread title. I'll read your proposal now and comment when I have time to analyze it.

craigcaulks* 09-14-2012 04:42 PM

I was pissed when you didn't play Ledbetter at a show in Berlin.

lush 09-14-2012 04:43 PM

The idea was discussed quite a bit last week (from what I remember) and this was one of the more popular ideas that was being tossed around. Freeze the cap, let it go back up once the split shifted to the owners a bit more.

I haven't commented on the CBA much either, it's hard to stomach the conversation to be honest. But the problem truly seems to be the disparity in revenues between the clubs. You have a bunch of clubs swimming in money and a bunch hemorrhaging money. The clubs making money are making more proportionately which is why the cap keeps going up. The clubs losing money have to reach the ever rising cap floor and are going bankrupt in the process.

What you suggested is almost common sense, to me it seemed a likely outcome if they don't actually lock out (that being the agreement would look something like this). If they do lock out and get more time to fight about it I think we might see more creativity in the end agreement. Fehr may come up with something and the joke circulating now is that as soon as Fehr can make his solution look like Bettman's idea the lockout will be over.

They need to think outside the box, be able to trade salary or money or cap space, have designated players that are cap exempt and be able to trade those slots from poor teams to rich teams for cash, something that allows the rich teams to help out the poor teams. Contraction would do the trick but the PA wouldn't like it.

Scurr 09-14-2012 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder (Post 54325745)
Rip apart my ideas, go go go!

Your idea's are good, I too think they could get together and hammer out a deal based on future growth. Unfortunately, the owners are not willing to base their profits on how well they run their teams, they want to make money right now, no matter how poorly they run them.

Also, without significant revenue sharing there are still going to be teams losing money with a 50/50 split. The owners have shown that as long as that's the case, they are going to keep asking for a reduction of salaries. The NHLPA can not accept a CBA that does not include revenue sharing or they'll be staring the same problem down next negotiations.

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lush (Post 54325975)
The idea was discussed quite a bit last week (from what I remember) and this was one of the more popular ideas that was being tossed around. Freeze the cap, let it go back up once the split shifted to the owners a bit more.

I haven't commented on the CBA much either, it's hard to stomach the conversation to be honest. But the problem truly seems to be the disparity in revenues between the clubs. You have a bunch of clubs swimming in money and a bunch hemorrhaging money. The clubs making money are making more proportionately which is why the cap keeps going up. The clubs losing money have to reach the ever rising cap floor and are going bankrupt in the process.

What you suggested is almost common sense, to me it seemed a likely outcome if they don't actually lock out (that being the agreement would look something like this). If they do lock out and get more time to fight about it I think we might see more creativity in the end agreement. Fehr may come up with something and the joke circulating now is that as soon as Fehr can make his solution look like Bettman's idea the lockout will be over.

They need to think outside the box, be able to trade salary or money or cap space, have designated players that are cap exempt and be able to trade those slots from poor teams to rich teams for cash, something that allows the rich teams to help out the poor teams. Contraction would do the trick but the PA wouldn't like it.

If they phased in a more aggressive revenue sharing idea at the beginning to offset the transition period, where the players share moves downward.. would that be a feasible idea?

Even if you drop the growth rate to 2% the league/player split would hit 50/50 3-4 seasons. If the PA is so confident in growth, they take the risk by agreeing that if league revenues do NOT grow at ~4%, then escrow claws back the difference. If they truly believe in a 7% growth rate, the owners share will be at 50ish % in 1-2 seasons, then linkage to revenue can be "turned on" again.

Its impossible to find a way to make every team profitable as long as people like Charles Wang own teams that make asinine hockey decisions over and over.

Has the league every implied or hinted that the floor could be negotated down as well?

Scurr 09-14-2012 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder (Post 54326115)
If they phased in a more aggressive revenue sharing idea at the beginning to offset the transition period, where the players share moves downward.. would that be a feasible idea?

The owners are not interested in revenue sharing, period. The money those teams are losing has to come from the players in their eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder (Post 54326115)
Has the league every implied or hinted that the floor could be negotated down as well?

That money would have to come from the players portion of the pie in the form of escrow, something the players are fighting hard against.

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scurr (Post 54326285)
The owners are not interested in revenue sharing, period. The money those teams are losing has to come from the players in their eyes.



That money would have to come from the players portion of the pie in the form of escrow, something the players are fighting hard against.

Screw the guy across the table to prevent helping the guy beside you.

Is there absolutely no revenue sharing in the current CBA?

Timmer44 09-14-2012 04:56 PM

Frankly, I don't see how Revenues will increase as they have. The League has had some luck (or not - Tony Gallagher) in who were successful. The large markets have been good which has provided a boost to the coverage and revenue.

LA, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Detroit, Pittsburgh all have had success. Even the Rangers and Capitals have shown bigger draws. Not to mention the success of the Canadian teams which seems to have exponentially grown since the lockout and the strong Canadian dollar. These are key markets and chances are they wont continue to be as successfull as they have been. Lets see what happens when Buffalo plays Ottawa, and a year later, Florida plays St Louis. Revenues will fall. I think the NHL knows that this trend cant continue.

Scurr 09-14-2012 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmer44 (Post 54326373)
Frankly, I don't see how Revenues will increase as they have. The League has had some luck (or not - Tony Gallagher) in who were successful. The large markets have been good which has provided a boost to the coverage and revenue.

LA, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Detroit, Pittsburgh all have had success. Even the Rangers and Capitals have shown bigger draws. Not to mention the success of the Canadian teams which seems to have exponentially grown since the lockout and the strong Canadian dollar. These are key markets and chances are they wont continue to be as successfull as they have been. Lets see what happens when Buffalo plays Ottawa, and a year later, Florida plays St Louis. Revenues will fall. I think the NHL knows that this trend cant continue.

The NHL has seen this rise in revenue in the face of a recession. It looks like the worst is over and all signs point to a recovering economy in the states, something the league could really take advantage of. Now is the perfect time to be growing the game and the NHL is headed for a lockout, typical of a terribly run business.

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Timmer44 (Post 54326373)
Frankly, I don't see how Revenues will increase as they have. The League has had some luck (or not - Tony Gallagher) in who were successful. The large markets have been good which has provided a boost to the coverage and revenue.

LA, Chicago, Boston, Philly, Detroit, Pittsburgh all have had success. Even the Rangers and Capitals have shown bigger draws. Not to mention the success of the Canadian teams which seems to have exponentially grown since the lockout and the strong Canadian dollar. These are key markets and chances are they wont continue to be as successfull as they have been. Lets see what happens when Buffalo plays Ottawa, and a year later, Florida plays St Louis. Revenues will fall. I think the NHL knows that this trend cant continue.

My idea factors the unpredictability in, as well. If the PA is so sure about the revenues rising, they have nothign to lose and they would be required to gauranteea % transfer of revenue if growth did not occur at an expected rate (4% in my quick example). If the owners share didnt meet the target, just like now, the players would give back in escrow. Nothing new.

DL44 09-14-2012 05:17 PM

What's wrong with your proposal - just one thing. The de-linked cap which the owners don't want.

What you're proposal shows is that even with a very conservative revenue growth, the players don't seemed as justified to hold such a hard line for guaranteed salaries in the long terms.

Also shows the NHL shouldn't be so hardlined against the players' guaranteed salary idea.

However, the risk on the NHL feeling the effects of even coming close to a lockout is very much alive and needs to be accounted for.

A hybrid of the 2 systems to protect both side may be the answer...

Players get $1.87 billion/ yr for the duration of the CBA as long as $1.89 bil is less than 56% of total revenue. - protection for the league in down or plateaued yrs.
Flip side:
$1.89 bil/yr until the value drops to 48% of total revenue, at which point it snaps back to 51ish% of total revenue and becomes linked the following yr and going forward


SO many options and viable structures that would work. They are a lot closer than the media is working to make it sound... by design.

They aren't far apart enough to justify the players to begin losing $23mil/gm... $23/gm they would never get back.

It's why i hold optimistic that this doesn't go past Oct1st-ish.

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 54326889)
What's wrong with your proposal - just one thing. The de-linked cap which the owners don't want.

What you're proposal shows is that even with a very conservative revenue growth, the players don't seemed as justified to hold such a hard line for guaranteed salaries in the long terms.

Also shows the NHL shouldn't be so hardlined against the players' guaranteed salary idea.

However, the risk on the NHL feeling the effects of even coming close to a lockout is very much alive and needs to be accounted for.

A hybrid of the 2 systems to protect both side may be the answer...

Players get $1.87 billion/ yr for the duration of the CBA as long as $1.89 bil is less than 56% of total revenue. - protection for the league in down or plateaued yrs.
Flip side:
$1.89 bil/yr until the value drops to 48% of total revenue, at which point it snaps back to 51ish% of total revenue and becomes linked the following yr and going forward


SO many options and viable structures that would work. They are a lot closer than the media is working to make it sound... by design.

They aren't far apart enough to justify the players to begin losing $23mil/gm... $23/gm they would never get back.

It's why i hold optimistic that this doesn't go past Oct1st-ish.


Owners will never give up linkage on a permanent basis, thats why I would consider it only unlinked until it reaches a pre-negotiated "split" of 50/50 or 51/49 etc. Then the cap would once again link to revenue and possibly grow along with revenues again.

As I said in the OP, the sticking point for the players is having to give up a big % of contracts negotiated in good faith. I am 100% behind them on that, its totally uncalled for and bad business to expect legal contracts to be garnished like that on such a mass scale.

My proposal ensures that the players would keep their guaranteed dollars, and the league would achieve is greater percentage of HRR within a relatively short time period.. after the correct division is acheived then revenue linkage "snaps back" to action and the cap is free to grow. If growth isnt acheived, players pay their escrow % to meet targeted declines in their share (which is the same as it is now).

DL44 09-14-2012 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lush (Post 54325975)
Contraction would do the trick but the PA wouldn't like it.

Not under the present CBA it wouldn't be.
Remember (if you believe Forbes), you have 18 ish teams at very slight profits, around even and losing money.

What you fail to realize, is that those two bottom teams are providing a revenue drag for the league and holding the cap at where it is.

You contract those teams, you remove the drag, and whatever the new revenue total is now only divided 28 teams instead of 30... Result: cap goes up.

All those mid-level teams hovering around even would be forced increase spending as required with increased cap, despite no personal revenue growth, putting them in the red.

The present mid-level teams would shift towards the negative.

The problem isn't the bottom revenue teams... the problem is the high end teams pulling the cap out of the range of the rest of the league.... i.e. the problem is the system...

The answer - reduce player cost and/or increase revenue sharing. There you have your CBA battle.



* that's why you don't hear peep out of either side about contraction, or even relocation. It's simply not the answer to this problem.

DL44 09-14-2012 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 54326889)
A hybrid of the 2 systems to protect both side may be the answer...

Players get $1.87 billion/ yr for the duration of the CBA as long as $1.89 bil is less than 56% of total revenue. - protection for the league in down or plateaued yrs.
Flip side:
$1.89 bil/yr until the value drops to 48% of total revenue, at which point it snaps back to 51ish% of total revenue and becomes linked the following yr and going forward

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Vedder (Post 54327007)
Owners will never give up linkage on a permanent basis, thats why I would consider it only unlinked until it reaches a pre-negotiated "split" of 50/50 or 51/49 etc. Then the cap would once again link to revenue and possibly grow along with revenues again.


You kinda insinuated i suggested a no linkage system... just wanted to clarify i didn't.
We're thinking along the same lines...

Eddie Vedder 09-14-2012 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DL44 (Post 54327449)
You kinda insinuated i suggested a no linkage system... just wanted to clarify i didn't.
We're thinking along the same lines...

I thought thats what you implied about me as well haha. We are going the long way to say we agree with eachother.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.