HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The Business of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124)
-   -   NHL asks for comprehensive proposal from NHLPA and next meeting Wednesday (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1287503)

LadyStanley 11-20-2012 12:07 AM

NHL asks for comprehensive proposal from NHLPA and next meeting Wednesday
 
http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index....-+MLive.com%29

Quote:

The NHL, during Monday's resumption of labor talks, urged the NHL Players Association to submit a formal proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement.
...
The sides will meet again, likely on Wednesday, when reports indicate the NHLPA will make a series of “give and take'' proposals to the league, as urgency to get a deal done in time to salvage the season is mounting.

Beacon 11-20-2012 12:35 AM

This whole BS that the league is offering a 50-50 split because they offered a 50% cap is nothing more than a PR trick meant to confuse people who are bad at math and/or logic.

If the cap will be dropped to 50%, the reality will be that the owners will be getting almost 60% of the revenue and the players will get slightly above 40%.

Under the old agreement, the NHL absolutely did NOT pay 57% in salaries. The cap was set at 57%, but not a single team has ever reached that cap because it would mean no room for a team to maneuver in calling up players. So even the most free-spending teams still leave a couple million in available cap space, which is 4-5% of the cap. So even the highest-spending teams actually spend no more than 52-53% on salaries.

Then there were a whole bunch of teams that don't come close to the cap. The floor is 43% and there are plenty of teams close to the floor.

All in all, under the old agreement, less than 50% was paid off in salaries. Under the new agreement, it will be about a 60-40 split in favor of the owners.

kdb209 11-20-2012 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beacon (Post 55898821)
This whole BS that the league is offering a 50-50 split because they offered a 50% cap is nothing more than a PR trick meant to confuse people who are bad at math and/or logic.

If the cap will be dropped to 50%, the reality will be that the owners will be getting almost 60% of the revenue and the players will get slightly above 40%.

Under the old agreement, the NHL absolutely did NOT pay 57% in salaries. The cap was set at 57%, but not a single team has ever reached that cap because it would mean no room for a team to maneuver in calling up players. So even the most free-spending teams still leave a couple million in available cap space, which is 4-5% of the cap. So even the highest-spending teams actually spend no more than 52-53% on salaries.

Then there were a whole bunch of teams that don't come close to the cap. The floor is 43% and there are plenty of teams close to the floor.

All in all, under the old agreement, less than 50% was paid off in salaries. Under the new agreement, it will be about a 60-40 split in favor of the owners.

Sigh. Wrong!!!

Why do people keep repeating this crap?.

Under the old CBA, the Players are guaranteed the full 54-57% Players Share - no more, no less. If the aggregate of Actual Club Salary exceeds the 57%, the teams deduct that excess from the escrow account (if the escrow is insufficient to cover the gap, the teams keep the entire escrow and the Players write an additional check). If the aggregate of Actual Club Salary is below 57%, the Players receive all their escrow back and the teams write checks to the Players to make up the shortfall.

It is not the Upper Limit that is directly linked to HRR - it is the Cap Midpoint. If average team payrolls are above the midpoint, the players will give back through escrow(*). If the avg payroll is below the midpoint (which has never happened), then the teams will have to pay to make up any final shortfall.

(*) Modulo the actual increase in revenues compared with the 5% HRR kicker.

me2 11-20-2012 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beacon (Post 55898821)
This whole BS that the league is offering a 50-50 split because they offered a 50% cap is nothing more than a PR trick meant to confuse people who are bad at math and/or logic.

If the cap will be dropped to 50%, the reality will be that the owners will be getting almost 60% of the revenue and the players will get slightly above 40%.

Under the old agreement, the NHL absolutely did NOT pay 57% in salaries. The cap was set at 57%, but not a single team has ever reached that cap because it would mean no room for a team to maneuver in calling up players. So even the most free-spending teams still leave a couple million in available cap space, which is 4-5% of the cap. So even the highest-spending teams actually spend no more than 52-53% on salaries.

The cap was set at (57% HRR / 30) + $8m. The players were also guaranteed 57% of HRR, which as you pointed out doesn't work - unless you don't forget the $8m.

LadyStanley 11-21-2012 11:11 AM

PollakOnSharks 9:08am via Web Multiple sources in NYC breaking that down to $1.2M per year per team, but multiple sources also point out NHL doesn't usually buy PA math.

PollakOnSharks 9:06am via Web World now awaiting NHL response to PA's plan that Fehr says has sides a mere $182M apart over five-year term. Bettman digesting over lunch.

LadyStanley 11-21-2012 11:23 AM

TheFourthPeriod 9:15am via Web Gotta wonder how Bettman, Daly, Jacobs & Co. feel about it, and how long they need to review it.


mirtle 9:12am via TweetDeck
Wouldn't be surprised to see full NHLPA proposal released at some point today.


CJ_Stevenson 9:16am via TweetDeck
We've been here before: everybody gets all exited over incomplete snippets of proposal from one side ... other side dumps on it. #waitandsee

LadyStanley 11-21-2012 11:25 AM

DarrenDreger 9:06am via Twitter for BlackBerry® Fehr wouldn't confirm he was pushed to change PA's position in proposal, but, told he and hardliners had to be convinced to move.

chasespace 11-21-2012 11:31 AM

In the News and Links thread it was said the PA would accept contract variance limits but not term limits. If they install a variance measure that the lowest salary year of a contract cannot be less than 75% of the highest year or something like that it would give you defacto term limits as deals like Kovy's and Luo's would be right out the window.

Ola 11-21-2012 12:00 PM

The PA ate AHL contracts, that is EASILY more than 180m over five years as a cap on AHL deals (and on risky signings).

Ola 11-21-2012 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasespace (Post 55935585)
In the News and Links thread it was said the PA would accept contract variance limits but not term limits. If they install a variance measure that the lowest salary year of a contract cannot be less than 75% of the highest year or something like that it would give you defacto term limits as deals like Kovy's and Luo's would be right out the window.

A cap on variance is all you need, that can't be a hard sell.

MoreOrr 11-21-2012 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyStanley (Post 55898285)

Sounds like it's getting close to make or break time. That the League is wanting the Fehr and the players to come out say exactly what there ultimate objective is. We all pretty much know what Fehr's objective is, but the League wants him to make it absolutely clear,... so they can just say: It's Not going to happen! Take some other route, or talks are over!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.