HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 11:55 AM
  #26
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Russo's part of that cabal of writers desperately searching for a negative out of everything lockout related. The scaling 49-47 proposal combined with Bettman's statement that this deal is negotiable up to 9/15 is essentially an offering of the 50/50 or 51/49 split we all know is ultimately going to be the deal that's agreed to. The issue is in the players' hands now. Any failure to reach a deal by Saturday is 100% the fault of the NHLPA.
Why is it always the fault of the NHLPA in your eyes?

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 01:40 PM
  #27
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Why is it always the fault of the NHLPA in your eyes?
My rational for it being *mostly* the PA's fault...

1. The league wanted to start this process at the start of this year. Fehr said no.
2. Fehr tried to convince the league that operating under the current CBA would be "okay". That is part and parcel to saying "we are going to strike during the playoffs".
3. The PA has yet to address core economic concerns and seem oblivious to the Direct Costs associated with running each team.
4. The PR machine on the part of the PA is annoying me with their transparent drivel designed to get the fans on their side.
5. The league has already shown a willingness to negotiate, but they are essentially negotiating with themselves. The PA has stood pat on the fact that they players aren't going to take less than what they have now.

The only major issue I have with the league is regarding the contracts signed. Unless there is a mutual agreement to renegotiate a contract, then the signed contract stands, no question.

I know you were asking squidz, but I figured I'd enumerate my thoughts.

I am still trying to run the numbers on an idea to split the components of HRR into buckets.

All Gate Receipts
Broadcast Revenue
Other

One of the algorithms that I'm kicking around is:
Player/Team Portions = (Gate Receipts*.5)+((Broadcast Revenue + Other - Travel Costs)*.5)

Where Broadcast Revenue + Other is tabulated for the entire league and then all teams travel expenses deducted before a meaningful split.

Linking the player portion to gate receipts is HUGE for me, because I think the combination of players using ticket prices against the owners is junk. Add in the fact that sometimes it seems that the vaunted players don't give a **** on the ice, it makes sense in my head. If part of their portion is directly tied to gate receipts, pre-, regular and post, then maybe we wouldn't have the Todd Richards style Florida games...

Plus, that algorithm directly answers one of the biggest costs for teams and shares the misery across the entire league. It would shift the sum burden of Western Conference travel evenly across the entire Eastern Conference. That would be a huge win for every western conference team and only a slight hit to the east.

Again, haven't been able to run the math due to work constraints...

Edit: Another big reason for tying the owner portion to gate receipts is also to allow for more cap flexibility. This concept essentially moves from a hard cap to a soft cap, which would allow the bigger market teams to spend more on the product on the ice. If Toronto and the Maple Leaf players want to charge $200 on average for tickets, then that organization has a much higher soft cap. If Nashville can (and typically do) put out a competitive team on a budget and keep their ticket prices lower to increase consumption, they would have a lower soft cap but still flourish in their market.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:08 PM
  #28
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Why is it always the fault of the NHLPA in your eyes?
Ever since the NFL and NBA lockouts, it's been well established that the NHL will ultimately get a deal in the same neighborhood as the other leagues. With the NHL at 57/43 and the other two leagues under 50/50 (not to mention how much more complete HRR is than what the NFL and NBA split) there's no question that that's going to change. Put simply, the players never had a chance to be anywhere near their current split.

Now, knowing that they'll ultimately end up at 51/49 or 50/50 or 49/51, it's more a question of timing than of end point. That battle was over before anyone tried to fight it. The league has essentially offered 50/50 (by offering 49/51-47/53 and announcing it's "negotiable"). The best deal the players could have hoped for is on the table, they just need to take it.

Furthermore, the NHLPA has not at any point negotiated in good faith at the bargaining table. They've cried about how their poor millionaires might end up taking a small paycut that leaves them with only a 75% raise over the past 6 years. They've tried to manipulate the media into filling their pockets with more fan money. They've lied, threatened, and cajoled as much as they could to demonize the league. The only thing they haven't done yet is actually put a reasonable proposal on the table. Several of their proposals have actually resulted in pay raises to the players. The league won't (and absolutely shouldn't) agree to any deal less than 6 years, so the players have offered 3 year options. Nothing they've actually presented has ever actually been a legitimate offer. Nothing they've done has made even the least bit of effort or compromise to get a season going. They've made repeated efforts to try ensure a lockout, but never have taken a single step to try avert one.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:24 PM
  #29
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
i think bissonette isn't very smart, or he thinks everyone else is stupid. players just need to **** about the politics of what's going on and focus on nhl13 tweets like Hackett and dog tweets like Kass, or girlfriend tweets like nystrom and rave tweets like Seto.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:26 PM
  #30
Dee Oh Cee
Registered User
 
Dee Oh Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Farmington
Country: United States
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
i think bissonette isn't very smart, or he thinks everyone else is stupid. players just need to **** about the politics of what's going on and focus on nhl13 tweets like Hackett and dog tweets like Kass, or girlfriend tweets like nystrom and rave tweets like Seto.
Yeah I saw that tweet you responded to on twitter. Not a wise one at all.

Dee Oh Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:27 PM
  #31
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,914
vCash: 500
Squidz, do you not understand how a negotiation works? If the NHLPA came to the table with a 50-50 split they'd end up with 45-46% of a smaller HRR calculation.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 02:56 PM
  #32
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Jarick... Except the PA isn't actually doing any negotiating. They are essentially ************ the league with these "suggestions".

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:04 PM
  #33
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
Squidz, do you not understand how a negotiation works? If the NHLPA came to the table with a 50-50 split they'd end up with 45-46% of a smaller HRR calculation.
And never did I suggest any such thing. The NHLPA's proposals have increased the players' net pay year over year. The entire reason the previous CBA was dissolved was because they were being paid too much. That's not negotiation, that's ************* and deliberate behavior to attempt to incite a lockout out of some misbegotten belief that "winning the PR war" will get them more money. When the league offered 43%, the players (if they had any interest in getting a deal done) could have at least offered a reduction in HRR split that would have brought their year over year salaries equal. No, they demanded more from the owners than had ever been given before.

At every opportunity to do something, they've chosen to do the thing which is furthest from attempting to get a deal done. The league has brought their offer closer to a middle ground, while the players continue to "negotiate off of their proposal." Let's ignore the fact that the players' "proposal" wasn't anything close to a legitimate proposal. Let's ignore the fact that almost every thing the league has requested (even something as obvious as not having a deal that will ensure another labor dispute starts brewing after only one season of play) the players have deliberately offered the opposite of. The players are acting like a bunch of spoiled children and refuse to even look at real proposals and instead think they'll just get their way if they scream loud enough to the media.

The league currently has a 50/50 split deal on the table with essentially everything else being equal to the current deal (there are some other changes, but those are negotiable and generally minor). If the players refuse to accept the deal, no one can hold the league responsible for that behavior. It is a far better deal to the players than the NFL or NBA received in their respective lockouts. The owners aren't taking anything remotely resembling excessive liberties. The players can prevent a work stoppage today with no effort and minimal effect upon the league.


Last edited by squidz*: 09-13-2012 at 03:05 PM. Reason: Apparently the auto filter doesn't block that word so I manually edited it out...
squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 03:53 PM
  #34
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
i like how people are clamoring that the NHL is just doing all they can to get a deal done, they are just bleeding out of their ass pleading and the PA is snubbing them, if NHL wants to be serious about getting a deal done they need to drop the money grab they seem to be on, players have said they will accept a lesser share of HRR but not at the cost of losing money on any of the already signed deals.

this whole idea how the NHL is making a decent offer need to be dropped, first off throw away the notion of a money grab, 2nd address the market disparity, and then you will get a deal done. NHL has yet to propose a solution to teams in weaker markets being viable long term, other then we'll get the players to bail em out. and please NHL wrote the ****ing CBA they failed, THEY FIX IT NOT THE PLAYERS. each one of the ****ing owners Leipold included that threw these massive deals around, bite the bullet, bend over, grab your ankles its your fault don't expect your employees to give you a solution.

The PA did give some "frame work" to get a deal going, to them asking for money back, either rollback or escrow is a NO DEAL, yet thats the only solution NHL is proposing, it's like the girl you like tells you she has no interest in wearing a dress and yet you keep asking her out by sending her a dress.

NHL needs to drop the money grab, its wrong on multiple grounds, moral, ethical, you signed those deals why now do you want to renegotiate them? once that happens the deal is going to take hours to get done.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:12 PM
  #35
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,914
vCash: 500
The NHLPA is not obligated by any means to negotiate off the NHL's proposal. That's just an NHL line that keeps getting repeated that they haven't received a counterproposal. They have, several times, just not one that they like.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 04:59 PM
  #36
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
The NHLPA is not obligated by any means to negotiate off the NHL's proposal. That's just an NHL line that keeps getting repeated that they haven't received a counterproposal. They have, several times, just not one that they like.
Yup, plus the PA has said the big issue is economic that part that nhl isn't addressing, just because players might accept a 50/50 doesn't mean that at the lower cap a team like Florida can still be missing the revenues necessary if nhl keeps making money

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 05:39 PM
  #37
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
i'm currently quite a bit more sympathetic to the owners in spirit, however asking for a substantial salary rollback is just wrong considering everyone and their cousin could tell it was getting out of hand. The idiots implying a salary rollback would equate to some sort of hardship for the players are really pissing me off though. No, it wouldn't be fair or right to roll back the salaries but let's not kid ourselves: No one is going to worry that a minimum wager is going to struggle to feed his dog if his pay drops from $800k to $500k.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 05:56 PM
  #38
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
The NHLPA is not obligated by any means to negotiate off the NHL's proposal. That's just an NHL line that keeps getting repeated that they haven't received a counterproposal. They have, several times, just not one that they like.
The next legitimate proposal the NHLPA makes will be their first. The PA isn't negotiating, they're sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU CAN'T MAKE ME NANANANANANANANA." They're not obligated to negotiate off of the league's specific proposal, no, but they have to date not submitted anything that remotely resembles a rational idea within their discussions with the league. It's the equivalent of an employer who is losing money offering an employee a pay cut in lieu of a layoff, and the employee responding with "if you give me a 5% raise I will continue to work for you." That's not a negotiation, that's a declaration of work stoppage.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:32 PM
  #39
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The next legitimate proposal the NHLPA makes will be their first. The PA isn't negotiating, they're sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU YOU CAN'T MAKE ME NANANANANANANANA." They're not obligated to negotiate off of the league's specific proposal, no, but they have to date not submitted anything that remotely resembles a rational idea within their discussions with the league. It's the equivalent of an employer who is losing money offering an employee a pay cut in lieu of a layoff, and the employee responding with "if you give me a 5% raise I will continue to work for you." That's not a negotiation, that's a declaration of work stoppage.
except in this case the employer came out with a Draconian proposal while included loss of rights as an employee, has been touting record revenue growth, has been touting that no franchise is worth less then 200 million dollars (even tho they sell lower) the issue isn't the employer will shut down and cease operation if players don't take a cut, its that there are part who are raking the money in because they are located in favorable markets, those teams are responsible for inflating the cap and making it so the smaller markets can't cover costs.

the owners have then come out with a solution that they take money from players.

to use a better example, you sign a deal to work with a company, your boss boasts about record revenues during a press conference and then comes and tells you he wants you to take a massive pay cut, do you go with it?

again players have said THEY ARE OK WITH SMALLER % OF HRR, JUST NOT WITH GIVING ACTUAL REAL ALREADY SIGNED DOLLARS BACK.

thats where the NHL is ****ing up, you bring up NBA and NFL yet NOT ONE NBA OR NFL PLAYERS HAS LOST A DIME ON A DEAL THEY ALREADY SIGNED BEFORE THE CBA.

the owners want to renegotiate deals already signed through the CBA. that is the sticking point players have.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:46 PM
  #40
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
no on is asking for a hard rollback, are they? it's all going into escrow and if the league does as well as it has then the players will get their $ back at the end of the year. Right? it's not like they're saying "Okay, Koivu, you're now making $5m a year. deal with it."

I imagine the implication for the NHLs threat to remove the current offer at the deadline is that they will demand a hard rollback, or a hybrid that is part hard rollback and part increase to escrow.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:50 PM
  #41
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
except in this case the employer came out with a Draconian proposal while included loss of rights as an employee,
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
has been touting record revenue growth, has been touting that no franchise is worth less then 200 million dollars (even tho they sell lower)
Which means less than nothing without the establishment of expense growth, normalization of currency, or distribution of wealth. When those factors are taken into consideration, it's pretty flagrant of silly and ignorant such statements are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
the issue isn't the employer will shut down and cease operation if players don't take a cut,
False.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
its that there are part who are raking the money in because they are located in favorable markets, those teams are responsible for inflating the cap and making it so the smaller markets can't cover costs.
Minorly true, however, it's entirely irrelevant considering how "proposals" offered by the PA have exacerbated the issue rather than offered any chance of resolution. This is more an argument against the players than for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
the owners have then come out with a solution that they take money from players.
The players are overpaid and have provided "solutions" that take more money away from the owners. Considering NHL players are compensated at a rate that's between 16% and 26% higher than the industry norm, demands for paycuts are hardly unexpected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
to use a better example, you sign a deal to work with a company, your boss boasts about record revenues during a press conference and then comes and tells you he wants you to take a massive pay cut, do you go with it?
There is no merit to this analogy as it does not compare at all to the NHL scenario.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
again players have said THEY ARE OK WITH SMALLER % OF HRR, JUST NOT WITH GIVING ACTUAL REAL ALREADY SIGNED DOLLARS BACK.
"I'm fine with taking less percentage-wise in revenue as long as you don't pay me less." What sort of half-wit actually looks at that statement without facepalming? The players have one position "You must pay us more than we have previously ever made." Despite the ludicrous claims they've made in the press, they've continuous refused to reduce their percentage of HRR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
thats where the NHL is ****ing up, you bring up NBA and NFL yet NOT ONE NBA OR NFL PLAYERS HAS LOST A DIME ON A DEAL THEY ALREADY SIGNED BEFORE THE CBA.
Oh god, you're serious aren't you? This would be hilarious if it weren't so depressingly deluded, ignorant, and ridiculously off-base. There aren't even words to describe the fact that someone would actually make this statement.

Here's the deal, teams will give NHLers 60% of revenues if they agree to non-guaranteed contracts like in other sports. Let's see how quickly the NHLPA agrees to that.


Last edited by squidz*: 09-13-2012 at 07:22 PM. Reason: fixed typo
squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:55 PM
  #42
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
The owners all fell over themselves to get one last deal in before the CBA expired. Then decry how those very deals are bad for business. If they were truly crippling to a franchise, then WHY KEEP OFFERING THEM????

You negotiated a contract with those players, you pay those players what they're owed. It's ********* for them to come in here expecting the players to take a paycut. It's even more ********* for them to not make any meaningful changes to revenue sharing other than using the money saved from player salary cuts to go to that.

The league is trying to make their employees bail them out of their own damn messes. **** the owners, Including the man who signed 2 98 million dollar contracts in one day. I think you're business is doin pretty decent if you can swing that bud.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 06:58 PM
  #43
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Here's the deal, teams will give NHLers 60% of revenues if they agree to non-guaranteed contracts like in other sports. Let's see how quickly the NHLPA agrees to that.
You added a plural to a word that didn't need it. The NFL is the only big 4 league without guaranteed contracts. The main reason is the lack of a minor league equivalent for the NFL. Teams sign almost double the amount of players they will keep every year... if all those deals were guaranteed it would be impossible to do business.

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have guaranteed contracts, a large portion of that is due to the existence of minor leagues.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:01 PM
  #44
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
no on is asking for a hard rollback, are they? it's all going into escrow and if the league does as well as it has then the players will get their $ back at the end of the year. Right? it's not like they're saying "Okay, Koivu, you're now making $5m a year. deal with it."

I imagine the implication for the NHLs threat to remove the current offer at the deadline is that they will demand a hard rollback, or a hybrid that is part hard rollback and part increase to escrow.
Correct. In fact, with the current rates according quick calculations off CapGeek, the escrow clawback would be comparable to last season under the 57/43 split. Last season's escrow clawback (according to somewhat rounded math) was 8.77% of non-signing bonus salary. With current figures bringing the split down to 49/51, the escrow clawback would be 9.96% or approximately 1.19% higher than last season. If the split were taken to 50/50 instead, the escrow clawback would be reduced year over year to only 7.76%. That means that as set up, players with continuing contracts would actually see a real dollars pay increase year over year under the current projections.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:02 PM
  #45
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The players are overpaid and have provided "solutions" that take more money away from the owners. Considering NHL players are compensated at a rate that's between 16% and 29% higher than the industry norm, demands for paycuts are hardly unexpected.
Citation needed.


Quote:
"I'm fine with taking less percentage-wise in revenue as long as you don't pay me less." What sort of half-wit actually looks at that statement without facepalming? The players have one position "You must pay us more than we have previously ever made." Despite the ludicrous claims they've made in the press, they've continuous refused to reduce their percentage of HRR.
Latest NHLPA propsoal goes from 54 to 52 percent over the course of the CBA.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:05 PM
  #46
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
You added a plural to a word that didn't need it. The NFL is the only big 4 league without guaranteed contracts. The main reason is the lack of a minor league equivalent for the NFL. Teams sign almost double the amount of players they will keep every year... if all those deals were guaranteed it would be impossible to do business.

The NBA, NHL and MLB all have guaranteed contracts, a large portion of that is due to the existence of minor leagues.
While some NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, that's not a requirement and many players do not have guaranteed contracts. Namely, the highest risk players (who are the ones this should most concern) do not have guaranteed contracts. Likewise, MLB contracts can technically be called fully guaranteed by the strictest definition of the term, but they're not guaranteed in quite the same manner as NHL contracts. MLB contracts generally have option portions which are not guaranteed.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:10 PM
  #47
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
While some NBA contracts are fully guaranteed, that's not a requirement and many players do not have guaranteed contracts. Namely, the highest risk players (who are the ones this should most concern) do not have guaranteed contracts. Likewise, MLB contracts can technically be called fully guaranteed by the strictest definition of the term, but they're not guaranteed in quite the same manner as NHL contracts. MLB contracts generally have option portions which are not guaranteed.
those options come with a buyout... and are often player directed or mutual.

NBA players to keep themselves in the league have the option to forgo the guarantee. But it's pretty much a non-issue

http://www.hoopsrumors.com/2012/03/2...contracts.html

That's the entire list of non-guaranteed contracts. Hardly a worthwhile segment of the group to say that NBA contracts aren't guaranteed. Also, they all become guaranteed at certain points within the contract, usually if they are still on the roster for game 1.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:10 PM
  #48
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Edit: Looks like I responded to the wrong "citation needed" demand. Give me a second...

Edit 2: NBA revenue split starts at 49/51. NHL revenue split is 57/43. That's a difference of approximately 16% (16.3265%). The NFL split is 47/53. However, while the NFLPA negotiated the return of $1BN in exemptions, the definition of FRR is differs significantly from HRR to the tune of (estimated) around 5%. The difference between those splits is about 21% (21.2766%) plus that estimated 5% for about 26%. The previous upper bound should have been 26% but was typo'd as 29% and has been adjusted.

Original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Citation needed.
Math is not hard. Current salary expense is at $1.778BN (per capgeek) compared to projected HRR of $3.3BN (per league, inferred through Capgeek). That's an escrow rate of 9.96% @ 49% and 7.76% @ 50%. Last season's figures were $1.860BN (per capgeek) compared to estimated HRR of approximately $3.0BN. That's an escrow rate of 8.77% @ 57%.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Latest NHLPA propsoal goes from 54 to 52 percent over the course of the CBA.
Incorrect, latest NHLPA proposal delinks salary from HRR, voiding any reasonable comparison. The "54 to 52 percent" claim is based upon extremely unreasonable annual increases in revenue for the league. While revenue is expected to largely stagnate over the next few years, the quoted percentages assume some 7-10% annual growth in HRR, which is simply not going to happen.


Last edited by squidz*: 09-13-2012 at 07:21 PM.
squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:11 PM
  #49
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
the NHLPA PR machine is obviously effective.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:15 PM
  #50
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
NHL contracts have non guaranteed options as well.
False. With the exception of a strict bonus schedule for ELCs and an extreme injury bonus exemption for established players (used less than 5 times since the lockout) all NHL contracts are fully guaranteed. The bonuses in ELCs are also additional to the actual contract, and therefore should be considered to be fully guaranteed as the structure of the contract does not actually offer the payment of the bonuses except in certain cases of cap avoidance (in which case, the league pays the bonuses anyway which makes it a moot point).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
In the MLB (and all sports) they often come with a buyout. NBA players to keep themselves in the league have the option to forgo the guarantee. But it's pretty much a non-issue

http://www.hoopsrumors.com/2012/03/2...contracts.html

That's the entire list of non-guaranteed contracts. Hardly a worthwhile segment of the group to say that NBA contracts aren't guaranteed. Also, they all become guaranteed at certain points within the contract, usually if they are still on the roster for game 1.
Which means they're non-guaranteed. Just because you personally think that it's not a huge deal doesn't change whether or not the contracts are guaranteed. Stop making false claims, and start providing citations for your own references if you're going to demand them of others.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:26 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.