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
09-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #101
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
TeamAverage AttendanceAverage Ticket PriceAverage Gate per GameHome GamesSeason Total Gate
Chicago21,53355.721,199,818.7641$49,192,569.16
Montreal21,27388.671,886,276.9141$77,337,353.31
Philadelphia20,43366.891,366,763.3741$56,037,298.17
Detroit20,11453.281,071,673.9241$43,938,630.72
Toronto19,506123.772,414,257.6241$98,984,562.42
Ottawa19,35655.511,074,451.5641$44,052,513.96
Calgary19,28968.181,315,124.0241$53,920,084.82
Vancouver18,88468.381,291,287.9241$52,942,804.72
St. Louis18,80941.57781,890.1341$32,057,495.33
Pittsburgh18,56663.061,170,771.9641$48,001,650.36
Buffalo18,55038.25709,537.5041$29,091,037.50
Washington18,50662.421,155,144.5241$47,360,925.32
Tampa Bay18,46837.73696,797.6441$28,568,703.24
NY Rangers18,19166.201,204,244.2041$49,374,012.20
Los Angeles17,92051.92930,406.4041$38,146,662.40
Minnesota17,77262.421,109,328.2441$45,482,457.84
Boston17,56458.941,035,222.1641$42,444,108.56
San Jose17,56249.73873,358.2641$35,807,688.66
Edmonton16,83970.131,180,919.0741$48,417,681.87
Nashville16,69051.04851,857.6041$34,926,161.60
Florida16,62855.67925,680.7641$37,952,911.16
Carolina16,04241.58667,026.3641$27,348,080.76
Colorado15,49840.62629,528.7641$25,810,679.16
New Jersey15,39645.86706,060.5641$28,948,482.96
Winnipeg15,00498.271,474,443.0841$60,452,166.28
Anaheim14,76036.94545,234.4041$22,354,610.40
Columbus14,66047.95702,947.0041$28,820,827.00
Dallas14,22629.95426,068.7041$17,468,816.70
NY Islanders13,19149.06647,150.4641$26,533,168.86
Phoenix12,42036.15448,983.0041$18,408,303.00

Total Estimated Average Gate for entire Regular Season: $1,250,182,448.44

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 02:36 PM
  #102
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Looks like Pierre LeBrun is reporting that escrow clawback for last season was only 0.5%. Since it's a lot easier to work backwards this way, it seems that the CapGeek numbers I used for last season should not have had the second category added, and bumping league revenue up to $3.08BN (the original projection was $3.0BN, but I have heard $3.1BN batted about, so that makes sense) comes up with exactly that 0.5%.

This strongly validates the calculation for 2012-2013 escrow rate as there was no confusion on which numbers should be included from CapGeek. As it stands, escrow clawback in 2012-2013 at a 50/50 split would be less than it was in either 2008-2009 or 2009-2010, although more than 2011-2012 (no data on other years, except I believe 2005-2006 actually had the owners submit excess payments to the players as immediate post lockout revenue estimates were ridiculously off).
so in 2012-2013 how much do players get back of their escrow payement? last year they got all but .5% back, how much do they get in 2012-2013 under the new lower rate?

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:09 PM
  #103
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
If one were to start guess at travel costs, what number would you pick?

Note; these are not released by the league/teams so any guess would be just that...

I'm picking a random number of $10M average per team.

This includes: transportation, hotel, and food/per diem...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 03:25 PM
  #104
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
so in 2012-2013 how much do players get back of their escrow payement? last year they got all but .5% back, how much do they get in 2012-2013 under the new lower rate?
The asking of this question proves that you do not understand the previous posts on this topic.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 04:01 PM
  #105
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The asking of this question proves that you do not understand the previous posts on this topic.
that players pay a lower escrow rate if they take a 50/50 deal?

my argument isn't about your rate, its about what the players have said about the NHL deal, that they feel its too steep of a pay cut for next year while the cap adjusts.

if escrow is meant to make sure both sides get their fair share no?

while players are saying getting paid at 57% share next year but should be paid at 49% or HRR share the ecrow account will reflect that at the end of the year.

that is all i am saying, players feel under nhl's immediate and steep decline in HRR share players feel the will give back too much pay. i am not questioning your rate. just saying the money give back for players is too much according to them.

also prove to me that under nhl new proposal players wont experience pay cuts greater then .5% they just experienced. last year players got 99.5% of their contracts.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 04:08 PM
  #106
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 500
Okay there are two things that are screwing up my calculations (not sure about yours Squidz):

1. Since 2007, the NHLPA has voted to escalate the salary cap by 5% each year. This means we should reduce revenue calculations by 5%. So for this past year, I'm coming out to $3.1B in revenues, which jives with your numbers.

2. When revenues fell between $2.2B and $2.7B, revenue sharing slid between 54% and 57%. I'm burned out on numbers so can't crunch the numbers, but I believe 2007 was around 55% and 2008 and 2009 around 56%.

Using this link and this link, it looks like the last few years have been about 0.5%, 4%, ~10%, and 12.9% respectively. From CapGeek, my numbers are 0.29%, 2.11%, and 8.23%. I am guessing they skew higher because actual salaries could be a bit higher than the total spending perhaps due to bonuses, skewing it closer towards reported totals.

Food for thought.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 06:54 PM
  #107
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
that players pay a lower escrow rate if they take a 50/50 deal?

my argument isn't about your rate, its about what the players have said about the NHL deal, that they feel its too steep of a pay cut for next year while the cap adjusts.

if escrow is meant to make sure both sides get their fair share no?

while players are saying getting paid at 57% share next year but should be paid at 49% or HRR share the ecrow account will reflect that at the end of the year.

that is all i am saying, players feel under nhl's immediate and steep decline in HRR share players feel the will give back too much pay. i am not questioning your rate. just saying the money give back for players is too much according to them.

also prove to me that under nhl new proposal players wont experience pay cuts greater then .5% they just experienced. last year players got 99.5% of their contracts.
For around the 951st time: You are the only person who has ever mentioned the actual escrow cut from the checks. No one else has said anything about it. No one else has mentioned it. No one else's numbers have anything (except indirectly) to do with it. The mentioned escrow rates in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are the clawback rates, not the reserve rates. That is also the figure I calculated for 2012-2013.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 09:26 PM
  #108
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
For around the 951st time: You are the only person who has ever mentioned the actual escrow cut from the checks. No one else has said anything about it. No one else has mentioned it. No one else's numbers have anything (except indirectly) to do with it. The mentioned escrow rates in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are the clawback rates, not the reserve rates. That is also the figure I calculated for 2012-2013.

i'm pretty sure every reporter has said the reason players rejected the league offer is because of the the steep decline in revenue they get, infact didn't daly say that instead of a flat reduction in contracts like in 2005 the league was going to use escrow to deal with the cap difference.

the cap under a 50/50 split is going to be less then it is now, how will the teams comply with that cap? NHL's solution in there proposal was ESCROW, there is a reason players rejected that deal THEIR ****ING ACCOUNTANTS DID THE MATH AND SAW PLAYERS WOULD GIVE BACK REAL DOLLARS THROUGH ESCROW, this is the point i'm making the reason players rejected the deal WAS BECAUSE THE STEEP REVENUE DECREASE makes them give back money.

you don't ****ing get it do you, if the whole year players are being paid at 57% of HRR when they are SUPPOSED TO BE PAID at 49/50% won't they have to give money to the owners at the end to make sure each gets their slice of the pie? all you have said well the Escrow rate is lower, but you didn't show how the reduce in share is going to be effected, OWNERS GAVE THE ANSWER AND ITS ESCROW PLAYERS DONT Like it and they rejected it.

Players proposed a slower reduction OWNERS DONT LIKE IT BECAUSE PLAYERS DONT GIVE REAL DOLLARS BACK,

did you miss the part where Daly confirmed players would give back via escrow

Quote:
Some claimed that was the exact same thing as a rollback, but Daly says this is the “exact same concept” as the escrow in the last CBA.

“Does it have an economic impact on the current contracts? Yes, just as escrow would normally have an economic impact on the current contracts,” Daly said.

Now, in the previous CBA, players typically got some of that money back. In fact, in a few weeks, players will get more than 8 percent of their withheld escrow back from last season back. In this new proposal, it would be pretty much guaranteed that the players wouldn’t get the majority of money put into escrow back in the first three years. In Years 4-6 of the NHL proposal, it would essentially bounce back to the current escrow rules – if revenue growth outpaced projections and teams didn’t largely spend to the cap, the players could get most or all of their escrow money back.
so yes while your calculation is a lower escrow in your mind a better deal for the players, in the real world they dont' like this deal because they would make less money then they would with a more gradual approach to the 50/50 split, i don't care what your rate is, the real impact on player pay is the reason players rejected this deal and we have a lockout.

maybe you need to catch up on escrow, did you miss this part

Quote:
n the NHL’s first proposal, the league asked for a player rollback. In last week’s proposal, the league got rid of the rollback request but asked players to put money into escrow that would essentially reduce their salaries and protect teams, like say the Wild, who are $12 million above the NHL’s current proposed salary cap level for next season.
again the reason players don't like this deal that you seem to think is so good is because of the above stated reason, now it seems you think the PA is wrong so please tell them how you are right so we can end this lockout you'll be a hero....

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 10:45 PM
  #109
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
As I'd mentioned before, you don't understand, and you actively refuse to actually acknowledge when anyone attempts to explain something to you so there's no point in attempting to discuss anything.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-17-2012, 11:38 PM
  #110
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 500
Actually there's little difference between escrow and salary rollbacks.

For this year, the "clawback" as you call it was 0.5%. If the revenue share was 50%, it would be much higher. At 57% of $3100M, salaries were roughly $1767M, and the revenue share must have been roughly the same. At 50%, revenue share would have been $1550M, which means the players would have to give up $217M in escrow.

The biggest difference would be in terms of the salary cap. If the revenue share is lowered, the cap would be lowered as well (unless the calculations are changed).

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:56 AM
  #111
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Squidz/Jarick...

I'm medicated and probably won't have time tomorrow to look this up myself and do the calculation.

Last year's Cap was 64.3. The planned cap for this season was 70.2

If the cap were to stay the same at 64.3 for the 12-13 season, what percent drop would that be in the over all players share?

figure that is roughly 1.5% without actually pulling all of the numbers...

Could one of you do a projection where the players share remains fixed at what it was for 11-12 (players get exactly what they have now) and how far out it would take for the current conservative gross HRR GROWTH to have the player's share drop to 50%?

meaning... keep current players share fixed until it evens out at 50% of gross HRR, and thereafter it grows with a gross HRR of 50%?

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 02:56 AM
  #112
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 bozak911 View Post
Squidz/Jarick...

I'm medicated and probably won't have time tomorrow to look this up myself and do the calculation.

Last year's Cap was 64.3. The planned cap for this season was 70.2

If the cap were to stay the same at 64.3 for the 12-13 season, what percent drop would that be in the over all players share?

figure that is roughly 1.5% without actually pulling all of the numbers...

Could one of you do a projection where the players share remains fixed at what it was for 11-12 (players get exactly what they have now) and how far out it would take for the current conservative gross HRR GROWTH to have the player's share drop to 50%?

meaning... keep current players share fixed until it evens out at 50% of gross HRR, and thereafter it grows with a gross HRR of 50%?
At a cap of $64.3MM the players' share of revenue is $1.689BN (Cap minus $8MM to calculate midpoint times 30 teams). The 2012-2013 cap of $70.2MM means a projected HRR of $3.274BN (Cap minus $8MM times 30 teams divided by 57%). So a $64.3MM cap this year would be a 51.6% share for the players in 2012-2013.

As for later years, with growth of 4% per anum, the players' share would hit 49.6% in 2013-2014. To keep it at 50%, the cap that year would increase to $64.8MM.

Bringing it back around to current cap situations, 8 teams are currently above a theoretical $64.3MM cap and all teams are compliant with a $48.3MM floor. Increasing the range of the cap from midpoint +/-$8MM to midpoint +/-$10.5MM would make all but 3 teams compliant with such a step. At current CapGeek salaries (same caveats as previous calculations) a 51.5/48.5 split could be achieved via a 6.82% escrow clawback. It's worth noting that these salaries could easily fit under a $64.3MM cap if they were distributed differently. Furthermore, this distribution would be only 7.34% closer to full cap spending than last year's final figure (73.36% of the cap instead of 66.02%).

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 09:48 AM
  #113
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
As I'd mentioned before, you don't understand, and you actively refuse to actually acknowledge when anyone attempts to explain something to you so there's no point in attempting to discuss anything.
squidz you don't get it, the owners not only proposed a lower HRR but an immediate lowering of the cap to what it should be under the new HRR share, however they backed off the whole salary rollback and instead are going to use escrow to get teams to be comply with the cap.

you are right players would be better of IF the owners were to keep the current cap numbers while working their way to the 50-50 split, but the owners WANT and immediate cut as in they want the cap to fall immediately and thats where the issue is. you must have missed that, see when russo said Wild would be over the new cap under the NHL deal? that is what he is talking about.

you are right if the current revenue number stays while the two sides get to 50/50 split over a few years then players are better off with the deal, however you didn't count or didn't want to for what ever reason didn't include the immediate cut the owners want.

so when the owners made the deal they want the share to fall by 8% immediately which means over the '12-'13 season players will receive 8% more pay they they should and this is where the escrow would come into play, since there would be a new cap for the 49% players get, the money put into escrow would go to cover the teams who are over the cap.

again, it doesn't seem that you took into the account that NHL wants a new cap calculated at 49% for the players share, can you tell me what the cap would be if players took a deal to receive 49% of HRR, whats the new cap and floor.

thats what the NHL is saying, they told the players you get 49%, there is a cap floor/ceiling that all teams have to comply with, in order to statisfy this new floor/ceiling rather then do a hard rollback like NHL did in 04/05 they are going to use escrow. Under those circumstances players lose.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 10:35 AM
  #114
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Squidz/Jarick...

I'm medicated and probably won't have time tomorrow to look this up myself and do the calculation.

Last year's Cap was 64.3. The planned cap for this season was 70.2

If the cap were to stay the same at 64.3 for the 12-13 season, what percent drop would that be in the over all players share?

figure that is roughly 1.5% without actually pulling all of the numbers...

Could one of you do a projection where the players share remains fixed at what it was for 11-12 (players get exactly what they have now) and how far out it would take for the current conservative gross HRR GROWTH to have the player's share drop to 50%?

meaning... keep current players share fixed until it evens out at 50% of gross HRR, and thereafter it grows with a gross HRR of 50%?
The kicker is that salary scaling happens after revenues are collected for the season, and nearly every year revenues have gone up.

The 2011-12 salary cap of $64.3M was based on the 2010-11 revenues of $2.8B with a 5% NHLPA escalator. If actual revenues were constant, the players would have given back $180M or nearly 10% of salaries in clawback.

The 2012-13 salary cap of $70.2M is based on the 2011-12 revenues of $3.1B with a 5% NHLPA escalator (this one works). If they drop the revenue share to 50% and kill the escalator, the salary cap will drop to $59.7M.

Obviously teams will have to get under the cap, but because the NHL has committed over $1.8B in salary, it would required revenues of $3.6B for the players to receive their full salary, which is a 16% increase in revenues, and I'm sure Squidz would agree that will not happen.

In the "worst case" scenario that revenues are flat, players will give up nearly 14% of their salaries in escrow clawback. So even though there wouldn't be a "salary rollback" per se, they are losing salary.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 11:00 AM
  #115
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
My poorly typed out question is more along the lines of;

If we fix the Player Share at last seasons total, ignoring revenue growth for the short term, how long until the Player Share of total HRR would be 50%?

I was assuming 5% growth in over all HRR...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 11:15 AM
  #116
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
 2011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-20172017-20182018-20192019-2020
Previous Year HRR$2,800,000,000.00$3,100,000,000.00$3,255,000,000.00$3,417,750,000.00$3,588,637,500.00$3,768,069,375.00$3,956,472,843.75$4,154,296,485.94$4,362,011,310.23
Player Share$1,689,000,000.00$1,689,000,000.00$1,689,000,000.00$1,708,875,000.00$1,794,318,750.00$1,884,034,687.50$1,978,236,421.88$2,077,148,242.97$2,181,005,655.12
Player Percentage60.32%54.48%51.89%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%
Per Team Mid$56,300,000.00$56,300,000.00$56,300,000.00$56,962,500.00$59,810,625.00$62,801,156.25$65,941,214.06$69,238,274.77$72,700,188.50
Per Team Cap$64,300,000.00$64,300,000.00$64,300,000.00$64,962,500.00$67,810,625.00$70,801,156.25$73,941,214.06$77,238,274.77$80,700,188.50

That is what my Excel skills came up with...

If the last season's cap were fixed until the Player's Share of HRR reached 50%, the players would operate under the same fixed dollar amount for two seasons, until a slight increase hits in 2014-2015, at which point, the over all number starts progressing again.

This would ensure that the players are receiving exactly what they are today, which would cut one of the NHLPA's legs out from under them... No roll backs or claw backs in salaries, players contracts are honored, etc...

Now, those teams that would be over the fixed cap of 64.3 million would need to figure things out in order to get under...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:03 PM
  #117
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 500
See I think that would be a solid compromise, although I'm sure they'd have to work in something just in case revenues dropped. If the owners aren't 100% dead set on a big initial drop in salaries, that would be good.

Say it was 57% last year, 54% next year, 52% the following, and 50% after that. That would be good for the players at least. But the owners would probably want something a little quicker. I dunno.

Even past that point, there is a big problem with the salary cap going so high. I do think they'll have to let the floor and cap loosen up a bit. In five years, the floor will be back close to $60M. Unless there is some SERIOUS revenue sharing.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 12:21 PM
  #118
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
See I think that would be a solid compromise, although I'm sure they'd have to work in something just in case revenues dropped. If the owners aren't 100% dead set on a big initial drop in salaries, that would be good.

Say it was 57% last year, 54% next year, 52% the following, and 50% after that. That would be good for the players at least. But the owners would probably want something a little quicker. I dunno.

Even past that point, there is a big problem with the salary cap going so high. I do think they'll have to let the floor and cap loosen up a bit. In five years, the floor will be back close to $60M. Unless there is some SERIOUS revenue sharing.
I think an added caveat that would take care of the revenue sharing issue was posed by the PA; allow teams to trade their cap space for cash and/or picks...

If a team like Toronto wants to essentially pay double for cap space, then so be it.

Example; Toronto wants to soak up 3 million in cap from Nashville. They pay straight cash for it. Then, they buy up 5 million of Phoenix's cap. This allows them to add payroll of 8 million, which they do by signing a super star to an $8M contract.

Toronto is out a total of $16M willingly to improve the team. Nashville and Phoenix both gain cash, for cap space they weren't using.

Of course, there would need to be rules in place on this, duration, totals, etcetera, but it would "share" the wealth from the big 6 but in a more businessy transaction rather than a straight socialist redistribution.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 01:27 PM
  #119
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
I think the owners can get an immediate drop sort of, have the player revenue not change this season, reduce the cap to 52% for '13-14 and allow for cap space trading to help teams still in need, year 3 its at 50 then goes to 49 %

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 01:54 PM
  #120
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
squidz you don't get it, the owners not only proposed a lower HRR but an immediate lowering of the cap to what it should be under the new HRR share, however they backed off the whole salary rollback and instead are going to use escrow to get teams to be comply with the cap.

you are right players would be better of IF the owners were to keep the current cap numbers while working their way to the 50-50 split, but the owners WANT and immediate cut as in they want the cap to fall immediately and thats where the issue is. you must have missed that, see when russo said Wild would be over the new cap under the NHL deal? that is what he is talking about.

you are right if the current revenue number stays while the two sides get to 50/50 split over a few years then players are better off with the deal, however you didn't count or didn't want to for what ever reason didn't include the immediate cut the owners want.

so when the owners made the deal they want the share to fall by 8% immediately which means over the '12-'13 season players will receive 8% more pay they they should and this is where the escrow would come into play, since there would be a new cap for the 49% players get, the money put into escrow would go to cover the teams who are over the cap.

again, it doesn't seem that you took into the account that NHL wants a new cap calculated at 49% for the players share, can you tell me what the cap would be if players took a deal to receive 49% of HRR, whats the new cap and floor.

thats what the NHL is saying, they told the players you get 49%, there is a cap floor/ceiling that all teams have to comply with, in order to statisfy this new floor/ceiling rather then do a hard rollback like NHL did in 04/05 they are going to use escrow. Under those circumstances players lose.
No, the issue is that you don't understand how escrow has worked in the past, nor understand that the proposal for the future would not have any of the effects you've tried to pin on it. Therefore discussion with you is impossible because you insist that you do know how both work.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 01:57 PM
  #121
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 bozak911 View Post
 2011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-20172017-20182018-20192019-2020
Previous Year HRR$2,800,000,000.00$3,100,000,000.00$3,255,000,000.00$3,417,750,000.00$3,588,637,500.00$3,768,069,375.00$3,956,472,843.75$4,154,296,485.94$4,362,011,310.23
Player Share$1,689,000,000.00$1,689,000,000.00$1,689,000,000.00$1,708,875,000.00$1,794,318,750.00$1,884,034,687.50$1,978,236,421.88$2,077,148,242.97$2,181,005,655.12
Player Percentage60.32%54.48%51.89%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%
Per Team Mid$56,300,000.00$56,300,000.00$56,300,000.00$56,962,500.00$59,810,625.00$62,801,156.25$65,941,214.06$69,238,274.77$72,700,188.50
Per Team Cap$64,300,000.00$64,300,000.00$64,300,000.00$64,962,500.00$67,810,625.00$70,801,156.25$73,941,214.06$77,238,274.77$80,700,188.50

That is what my Excel skills came up with...

If the last season's cap were fixed until the Player's Share of HRR reached 50%, the players would operate under the same fixed dollar amount for two seasons, until a slight increase hits in 2014-2015, at which point, the over all number starts progressing again.

This would ensure that the players are receiving exactly what they are today, which would cut one of the NHLPA's legs out from under them... No roll backs or claw backs in salaries, players contracts are honored, etc...

Now, those teams that would be over the fixed cap of 64.3 million would need to figure things out in order to get under...
I think it's safe to assume the league's estimate for 2012-2013 is accurate as stands (which results in that $3.274BN that was previously mentioned [and is Jarick's $3.1BN * 5% escalator]). That would essentially move each of your years back one.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 02:16 PM
  #122
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
I'll adjust it later and re-post.

Squidz, you are correct, the Players share would hit 50% a season earlier and even go up:
 2011-20122012-20132013-20142014-20152015-20162016-20172017-20182018-20192019-2020
HRR$2,800,000,000.00$3,274,000,000.00$3,437,700,000.00$3,609,585,000.00$3,790,064,250.00$3,979,567,462.50$4,178,545,835.63$4,387,473,127.41$4,606,846,783.78
Player Share$1,689,000,000.00$1,689,000,000.00$1,718,850,000.00$1,804,792,500.00$1,895,032,125.00$1,989,783,731.25$2,089,272,917.81$2,193,736,563.70$2,303,423,391.89
Player Percentage60.32%51.59%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%50.00%
Per Team Mid$56,300,000.00$56,300,000.00$57,295,000.00$60,159,750.00$63,167,737.50$66,326,124.38$69,642,430.59$73,124,552.12$76,780,779.73
Per Team Cap$64,300,000.00$64,300,000.00$65,295,000.00$68,159,750.00$71,167,737.50$74,326,124.38$77,642,430.59$81,124,552.12$84,780,779.73


Last edited by bozak911: 09-18-2012 at 02:22 PM.
bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 03:25 PM
  #123
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,390
vCash: 500
If you assume 4% growth and take out the 5% escalator for 2011-12 and actual revenues start at $3.1B, they would catch up after Y3 of the new CBA (2014-15). If salaries are held steady, they would be 54.8%, 52.7%, and 50.7% for the first three years. That moves it much further away from the NHL proposal, although it's still $850M less than NHLPA over the 5Y.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-18-2012, 03:29 PM
  #124
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
It's worth noting that a pretty much non-negotiable part of the NHL's position is that any deal be at least 6 years in length.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 01:07 PM
  #125
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
I wonder if the meetings today to discuss last year's HRR will open any of the players eyes as to the core economic issues that the league (including the players) face in today's world.

bozak911 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 04:54 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.