HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Creative CBA solutions? Do you have one? Have you seen any?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-19-2012, 05:36 PM
  #151
Old Man Barking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drury_Sakic View Post
Considering in a 50-50% split, the owners give up nothing on the previous CBA and the players walk down from 57%...it would favor the NHL/Owners.....plus there is almost certain to be some sort of term limits on contracts and/or prevention of manipulating the cap hit as some deals have.

Though I tend to agree with you, sorta. The only way the players get a CBA with a share of 50% or more IMO is if they present a deal in short order that takes a big step closer to 50%....big enough that the teams making money under the prior CBA have a strong motivation to keep the train rolling.
I meant favor as in the NHL gets a larger percentage. I forget the quote, but Bettman has alluded to it a couple times (I think?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
Where have you gotten that from? After they offered 49%, they even said that percentage does not have to be final and does have wiggle room.

50-52% favoring the players is very possible but only if they negotiate it soon.
I'd be surprised to so a 52% for players, anything over 50-50, in my opinion, won't happen due to owners/NHL.

Old Man Barking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 05:56 PM
  #152
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
If tomorrow, I wake up and find out I am the Grand Supreme Ruler of the Universe for a day here is what I would impose.

5 year ELC deals. All players currently ON an ELC get extended to make their original deal 5 years.

RFA is any player who finishes their ELC and will not be 26 years old before 9-15 of that year. Former team still has right to match offers. I would drop compensation. Any player who signs an offer sheet for less than $1MM annual salary, the compensation is a 4th rd pick. $1MM-$2MM, a 3rd rd pick. $2MM-3MM, a 2nd round pick. $3MM-4MM, a 1st round pick. $4MM and up two first round picks. Make the compensation somewhat reasonable so the RFA has an actual chance to sign an offer sheet with another team.

Cap, I posted this in another thread, it is not my idea, but I like it. Can't remember where I saw it, I think on this site. If it is your idea, kudos to you and feel free to say so.

2012-13, $70MM.
2013-14, $70MM or 55% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2014-15--> same as 2013-14 cap or 53% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2015-16--> sames as 2014-15 cap or 52% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2016-17--> same as 2015-16 cap or 51% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2017-18-->same as 2016-17 cap or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2018-19 and beyond--->same as previous year or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.

Basically, guarantees the cap does not go down, so players arent losing money for owners dumb decisions. If revenues do increase, the players share goes down by percentage gradually until they reach 50%.

Signing bonuses are allowed, cap hit is spread throughout life of contract. Salary must be the same for each year of the contract. If a player retires before the contract expires, the signing bonus cap hits will continue to count against the cap and the salary comes off.

Max contract of 8 years.

Keep the over 35 rule as is.

I am sure there is some stuff I am leaving out, but this seems to be the crux of the issue.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 06:19 PM
  #153
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
2012-13, $70MM.
2013-14, $70MM or 55% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2014-15--> same as 2013-14 cap or 53% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2015-16--> sames as 2014-15 cap or 52% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2016-17--> same as 2015-16 cap or 51% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2017-18-->same as 2016-17 cap or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2018-19 and beyond--->same as previous year or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.
Like the concept... but if there is de-linkage to guarantee min player salaries with the stipulation "whichever is higher" for the players, you might as well set the percentage points at 50% or lower in each yr for the owners to agree....

i.e.Simply put: the cap remains @ $70mil till revenues hit $3.7 bil... then becomes linked at 50% going further.

DL44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 07:09 PM
  #154
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
Furthermore, I drop the cap floor by $10MM. However, I set a threshold of 90% of the total cap. If league wide salaries do not total 90% of the salary max, then whatever is left over is carried over to the following year's cap. So, in 2012-13 with a $70MM cap, the total must reach $1.89B (63MMx30). If it reaches only $1.86B, than $30MM gets carried over to the following year, so the cap for each team would rise $1MM.

Also, REVENUE SHARING.

Ticket revenue is split, 70-30 for the home team.

Lower revenue teams will also get a larger chunk of any league-wide deals such as National TV deals, Winter Classic Revenues, etc. Rather than each team getting 1/30 each, the ten largest teams will get 1/60 (half-share). Teams 11-20 will get 1/30, and teams 21-30 will get 1/20. When you figure ten teams in each group, it becomes 1/6+1/3+1/2. (this could be subject to change if it turns out it is not enough actual cash to make a dent for the lower revenue teams).

I also use the 4-division format with re-seeding for the semi-finals and divisional play-offs.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 07:10 PM
  #155
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DL44 View Post
Like the concept... but if there is de-linkage to guarantee min player salaries with the stipulation "whichever is higher" for the players, you might as well set the percentage points at 50% or lower in each yr for the owners to agree....

i.e.Simply put: the cap remains @ $70mil till revenues hit $3.7 bil... then becomes linked at 50% going further.
Yeah, I guess that would make sense, too. Ok, in the morning I will flip a coin. Head-keep my idea. Tails, use DL44's.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:38 PM
  #156
ps241
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
If tomorrow, I wake up and find out I am the Grand Supreme Ruler of the Universe for a day here is what I would impose.

5 year ELC deals. All players currently ON an ELC get extended to make their original deal 5 years.

RFA is any player who finishes their ELC and will not be 26 years old before 9-15 of that year. Former team still has right to match offers. I would drop compensation. Any player who signs an offer sheet for less than $1MM annual salary, the compensation is a 4th rd pick. $1MM-$2MM, a 3rd rd pick. $2MM-3MM, a 2nd round pick. $3MM-4MM, a 1st round pick. $4MM and up two first round picks. Make the compensation somewhat reasonable so the RFA has an actual chance to sign an offer sheet with another team.

Cap, I posted this in another thread, it is not my idea, but I like it. Can't remember where I saw it, I think on this site. If it is your idea, kudos to you and feel free to say so.

2012-13, $70MM.
2013-14, $70MM or 55% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2014-15--> same as 2013-14 cap or 53% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2015-16--> sames as 2014-15 cap or 52% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2016-17--> same as 2015-16 cap or 51% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2017-18-->same as 2016-17 cap or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.
2018-19 and beyond--->same as previous year or 50% of HRR, whichever is higher.

Basically, guarantees the cap does not go down, so players arent losing money for owners dumb decisions. If revenues do increase, the players share goes down by percentage gradually until they reach 50%.

Signing bonuses are allowed, cap hit is spread throughout life of contract. Salary must be the same for each year of the contract. If a player retires before the contract expires, the signing bonus cap hits will continue to count against the cap and the salary comes off.

Max contract of 8 years.

Keep the over 35 rule as is.

I am sure there is some stuff I am leaving out, but this seems to be the crux of the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Furthermore, I drop the cap floor by $10MM. However, I set a threshold of 90% of the total cap. If league wide salaries do not total 90% of the salary max, then whatever is left over is carried over to the following year's cap. So, in 2012-13 with a $70MM cap, the total must reach $1.89B (63MMx30). If it reaches only $1.86B, than $30MM gets carried over to the following year, so the cap for each team would rise $1MM.

Also, REVENUE SHARING.

Ticket revenue is split, 70-30 for the home team.

Lower revenue teams will also get a larger chunk of any league-wide deals such as National TV deals, Winter Classic Revenues, etc. Rather than each team getting 1/30 each, the ten largest teams will get 1/60 (half-share). Teams 11-20 will get 1/30, and teams 21-30 will get 1/20. When you figure ten teams in each group, it becomes 1/6+1/3+1/2. (this could be subject to change if it turns out it is not enough actual cash to make a dent for the lower revenue teams).

I also use the 4-division format with re-seeding for the semi-finals and divisional play-offs.
Not a bad effort at all and I would bring in DL44's concept of $70 million or 50%.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:44 PM
  #157
ps241
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
I've been putting a lot of thought into this and I think I found a solution that addresses both sides. The players want their share, and the owners want the player salaries tied to revenues as part of a cap.

The big problem with the Cap as it is today is the wealthiest teams get the biggest advantage from the cap. Their 50% share is not actually being paid by the wealthiest teams, it's being partially paid by the poorest teams.

I will use the Forbes 2010 financials (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/31/...s-10_rank.html) as a basis for the analysis or model (note some changes as revenues have grown and Atlanta moved to Winnipeg). Based on that year the total revenue generated would have been $2.9B, and 50% of that would be $1.45B that would go to the players if they agreed on 50% in the expiring system or nearly $49M per team. The real problem is the disparity in revenue. Toronto tops the list at $187M in revenue, while the Islanders bottom out the list at $63M in revenue. The Islanders end up paying 77% ($49M share of $63M revenue) and Toronto ends up paying 26% ($49M share of $187M revenue). This is the problem in itself, and there is not sufficient enough revenue sharing to balance that.

My thought is that you find a baseline salary cap level where every NHL team can be profitable paying 50% of it's revenue to the players. Then you take 50% of the revenue of each team individually minus the salaries and put that in escrow to divide equally among the players.

The lowest revenue teams like Phoenix and New York Islanders generate about $65M a year in revenue. If you take 50% of that for $32.5M that is the new salary cap mid point. Say a range of $22.5M-42.5M for the salary cap.


PHP Code:
TEAM         2010 REVENUE      50REVENUE     CAP        ESCROW
TOR         
$187.0          $93.5          $32.5          $61.0 
MTL         
$163.0          $81.5          $32.5          $49.0 
NYR         
$154.0          $77.0          $32.5          $44.5 
PHI         
$121.0          $60.5          $32.5          $28.0 
CHI         
$120.0          $60.0          $32.5          $27.5 
DET         
$119.0          $59.5          $32.5          $27.0 
VAN         
$119.0          $59.5          $32.5          $27.0 
BOS         
$110.0          $55.0          $32.5          $22.5 
NJD         
$104.0          $52.0          $32.5          $19.5 
LAK         
$98.0          $49.0          $32.5          $16.5 
CGY         
$98.0          $49.0          $32.5          $16.5 
OTT         
$96.0          $48.0          $32.5          $15.5 
DAL         
$95.0          $47.5          $32.5          $15.0 
MIN         
$92.0          $46.0          $32.5          $13.5 
PIT         
$91.0          $45.5          $32.5          $13.0 
SJS         
$88.0          $44.0          $32.5          $11.5 
EDM         
$87.0          $43.5          $32.5          $11.0 
ANA         
$85.0          $42.5          $32.5          $10.0 
COL         
$82.0          $41.0          $32.5          $8.5 
WAS         
$82.0          $41.0          $32.5          $8.5 
BUF         
$81.0          $40.5          $32.5          $8.0 
STL         
$79.0          $39.5          $32.5          $7.0 
FLA         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
CBJ         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
TBL         
$76.0          $38.0          $32.5          $5.5 
CAR         
$75.0          $37.5          $32.5          $5.0 
NAS         
$74.0          $37.0          $32.5          $4.5 
ATL         
$71.0          $35.5          $32.5          $3.0 
PHX         
$67.0          $33.5          $32.5          $1.0 
NYI         
$63.0          $31.5          $32.5 
This way 50% of the revenues from EACH team goes to the players, so they get their share. The owners get cost certainty but the most wealthy owners finally have to pay their share. It's only fair, and I would imagine the majority of the owner would prefer to pay based on THEIR revenues not the league average revenues divided equally. The players get their share, everyone is happy (but the richest teams who suddenly have to pay 50% of their revenue instead of 25-30%).
I still think this is one of the more interesting outside the box ideas or at least frameworks for a proposal that could help allot with Revenue sharing and preserving competitive balance.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-19-2012, 08:48 PM
  #158
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,474
vCash: 500
I just can't go for the 5 yr ELC simply because of the term "4th year break-out." I think it's unfair for a guy who really does break out by then but was not a high pick to be getting much lower than others. Imagine if Giroux was getting his ELC amount (which I don't think was that high) in his 4th or 5th season. Of course what he's getting right now ($3.75 M) is still a bargain.

I am however in favour of putting some type of cap or % cap on RFA contracts OR at least the 1st contract after the ELC expires so that it doesn't cause problems with re-signing RFA's. Basically none of the Doughty holdout situations. I also don't like some of them being offered a $6 M deal after just 2 yrs so curb spending there but not to the point of making a guy who was a 2nd round pick but puts up 50-80 pts be earning less than $1 M because his ELC is 5 yrs long.

Also owners will never go for that gradual drop. It's a good proposal but I doubt they go through the trouble to have something that's not drastic at all or at least Bettman would refuse demanding a more significant drop in real dollars for now.

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 11:16 AM
  #159
Mr Sakich
Registered User
 
Mr Sakich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Motel 35
Posts: 8,095
vCash: 500
since the players do not want a roll back, one option is to go to last years cap of 64.3 million per team. Based on the projected revenues for this year, that would be 52.2% of HRR. This allows the players to save face while giving Bettman his more favourable split.

The cap would stay the same until revenues grow to the amount where it is 50%. After that, the players would get their minimum 50% of HRR. This is an incentive for the league to grow revenues while still not clawing back any contracts.

In order to allow teams to get to the 64.3 ceiling, there would be buyouts. This allows the higher spending teams to reach the floor while the players get extra money that isn't counting toward the cap.

Seems pretty simple to me

Mr Sakich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 01:17 PM
  #160
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,229
vCash: 500
My creative solution....and I warn you it's way out there.






Just perhaps the PA could accept the current framework for the CBA has been good for them and they come to the negotiating table to get the tweaking that needs doing done?

I know crazy.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 02:23 PM
  #161
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantalum View Post
My creative solution....and I warn you it's way out there.






Just perhaps the PA could accept the current framework for the CBA has been good for them and they come to the negotiating table to get the tweaking that needs doing done?

I know crazy.
Problem is the owners and players association have different interpretations of the meaning of the word, "tweaking".

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 02:59 AM
  #162
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I still think this is one of the more interesting outside the box ideas or at least frameworks for a proposal that could help allot with Revenue sharing and preserving competitive balance.
One detraction that I can understand the players not liking is the significant increase of salary in escrow. Based on the 2010 numbers, if 10-20% of player salaries went to escrow that would have been about $145-290M, where as my proposal would have put $490M in escrow. At least 2-3 times (or 30-40% of player salaries) more going into escrow for the players would have to be something they would accept to get a deal that supports all 30 teams in the league in their current markets.

That's where revenue sharing probably becomes the players top choice. It fulfills the same purpose without the high level of escrow. The two concepts are very similarly linked, but I imagine it's easier for the owners to shoot down that level of revenue sharing versus every team paying their share of the players portion.


Last edited by Guest: 09-21-2012 at 03:04 AM.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 08:42 AM
  #163
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
I wonder why they can't just scale down the share % slowly for 3 years or so to 50/50 and the owners eat half the escrow until they get there.

Partnership right?

Rinzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 12:50 PM
  #164
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,265
vCash: 500
Slowly reducing the players percentage does nothing to fix the long term issue. If revenues are $3.3B and the players get 50% ($1.65B) divided by 30 teams for $55M that's nearly as much revenue as the poorest teams generate.

Sell the 5 lowest revenue generating teams to John Gault and move them to Atlantis and then the revenues across the league jump to $4B, players get 50% ($2B) divided by 30 teams for $66M. Then you've got a whole new group of teams that are paying 75% of their revenue to the players.


Last edited by Guest: 09-21-2012 at 12:59 PM.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 03:35 PM
  #165
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Would a temporary deal be able to get the season started?

I know it probably won't happen, but would a deal like this be possible?

Players and owners agree to start the season and agree that there will be no strike or lockout for the remainder of the season. It would be done under the following terms:
- Escrows are increased to 50% of player salaries
- How the money is handled will be determined in the negotiations
- Players guaranteed 52% of HRR and escrow money returned accordingly if the season + playoffs are completed (without strike) and no agreement is reached yet
- If players strike owners are under no obligation to return any of the escrow money

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 05:30 PM
  #166
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
It would seem pretty easy to guarantee that the players wont go on strike just before the playoffs in order to demand that they be allowed to continue under the same cba and play the playoffs, as ridiculous as that sounds when you say it out loud, by doing just such an escrow concept.

However, that would be an idea from someone who thinks that the problem is that the players stalled on negotiations and there was no need to wait for the deadlines to make a deal, because it is just a matter of negotiating. It would seem evident that the problems is not one needing negotiations to be solved, it requires capitulation.

As everyone points out, the owners have the leverage. And so they are going to use it. They arent going to win by their clever negotiating, they intend on winning by exerting their leverage and forcing surrender. Just like the nfl and nba they are emulating did. Why should the owners compromise, as the majority here point out - they have all the leverage. And Bettmans negotiating pattern is clear for all to see.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 05:58 PM
  #167
ps241
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
One detraction that I can understand the players not liking is the significant increase of salary in escrow. Based on the 2010 numbers, if 10-20% of player salaries went to escrow that would have been about $145-290M, where as my proposal would have put $490M in escrow. At least 2-3 times (or 30-40% of player salaries) more going into escrow for the players would have to be something they would accept to get a deal that supports all 30 teams in the league in their current markets.

That's where revenue sharing probably becomes the players top choice. It fulfills the same purpose without the high level of escrow. The two concepts are very similarly linked, but I imagine it's easier for the owners to shoot down that level of revenue sharing versus every team paying their share of the players portion.
yea I think it could be solved though. Transition the verbiage from escrow to revenue sharing and make the payments as the year progresses based on projections and while using a much more modest hold back which is actually escrow (15%). unless that is what you meant? Oh and one more thing Guest one of the great parts of it is if their is ever a currency disparity issue again like in the early 90's it could be normalized really well with your proposal.

ps241 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 06:43 PM
  #168
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,300
vCash: 500
One thing I have to wonder about in situations like this... what purpose does the union actually serve?? We saw individual teams scrambling to sign players right before the lockout, but when organized as a collective, the owners vote 30-to-0 for a lockout....

We're past the stage where a union is required to protect workers rights and whatnot. Why not de-certify, and by extension, make any collective bargaining restrictions, illegal?

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 06:59 PM
  #169
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,293
vCash: 500
Dont get fooled by that 30-0 vote, the owners arent that united on anything. They voted to allow Bettman to continue with the leverage they knew all along they were going to use and intended for him to use to squeeze maximum concessions from the PA with. But they will feel pressure and cracks just like the players will as time goes on, its just they will be much more tightly controlled in their messaging.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 07:18 PM
  #170
KevFu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans
Country: United States
Posts: 3,926
vCash: 500
Players cut changes from 57% of HRR to: 57% of MEDIAN HRR times 30.
Revenue Sharing goes from 4.5% of HRR to: (60% of HRR - Players Share)
Revenue Sharing exclusions eliminated.



In practice (based on Forbes 2011, with ATL adjusted for WIN)

Midpoint/Cap/Floor goes down $4 million: $54.7/$62.7/$48.7
26 of 30 teams can afford to spend 57% of revenues and reach the floor. Four cannot (CBJ, STL, PHX, NYI)… before the additional revenue sharing.

$97 million more in revenue sharing would be created.
The bottom 12 teams are $105.7 million under the midpoint (not floor).

After redistribution of the additional revenue sharing:

9 teams can spend to the cap.
5 teams can spend between the midpoint and cap.
12 teams can spend to the midpoint
4 teams can spend between floor and midpoint.


The result would be $80 million more spent on players than actually occurred in the 2011 season.

Win for the players.
Win for the owners.
Drop the puck already.

KevFu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-21-2012, 07:19 PM
  #171
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Dont get fooled by that 30-0 vote, the owners arent that united on anything. They voted to allow Bettman to continue with the leverage they knew all along they were going to use and intended for him to use to squeeze maximum concessions from the PA with. But they will feel pressure and cracks just like the players will as time goes on, its just they will be much more tightly controlled in their messaging.
The owners are united on getting the best deal they can for themselves when negotiating on all players at once. I suspect they'd be less united if not given the ability to negotiate for all players at once like the NHLPA does.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 04:03 AM
  #172
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 696
vCash: 500
Haven't read all of these cause after a while all of the numbers make my head hurt.

-A 10 year CBA that starts at 54/46 for the players and goes down 1% every 2 years.

-Individual teams keep 10% of their profits(t.v. concessions, tickets, whatever), then the rest goes into revenue sharing to be split evenly among the 30 teams. If your only means of income for the year is by the revenue sharing, then you MUST spend 85% of it on players salaries(so your not sandbagging like the pittsburgh pirates have for years)

georgiabluejacket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:55 AM
  #173
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Team View Post
I know it probably won't happen, but would a deal like this be possible?

Players and owners agree to start the season and agree that there will be no strike or lockout for the remainder of the season. It would be done under the following terms:
- Escrows are increased to 50% of player salaries
- How the money is handled will be determined in the negotiations
- Players guaranteed 52% of HRR and escrow money returned accordingly if the season + playoffs are completed (without strike) and no agreement is reached yet
- If players strike owners are under no obligation to return any of the escrow money
If the PA won't negotiate now why would they during the season. It will take a long lockout to bring them to the table and make a deal that will work for the league.

JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-22-2012, 07:57 AM
  #174
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Dont get fooled by that 30-0 vote, the owners arent that united on anything. They voted to allow Bettman to continue with the leverage they knew all along they were going to use and intended for him to use to squeeze maximum concessions from the PA with. But they will feel pressure and cracks just like the players will as time goes on, its just they will be much more tightly controlled in their messaging.
And that gag order he has on the owners helps, not like the players who end up saying stupid things in the media that usually make thm look bad. But when it comes to cracks we could assume the owners can stomach a longer lockout then the players can.

JAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 10:53 AM
  #175
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,769
vCash: 105
After chewing on where both sides are...

A 10 yr deal seems to be the most likely solution to where both sides want to be...

A modification on the original:

Give the players a guarantee of salary for the first 3 or 4 yrs that they want... and the owners get their % in the latter yrs of the deal.

Yrs 1 - 5
Players get their $1.89 bil.
Increase annually at 2.9% (est inflation) each yr. we'll say 3% at yr for 4yrs.

Owner protection (in case revenue plateaus): the players' share caps at a max of 55% in yrs 3-5.
Players protection (in case revenue explode): The players' share floors at 48%.

Yrs 6-7
Players' share becomes linked at 51%

Yrs 8-10
Players' share becomes linked at 50%

...........

How does it look with the modest 5% annual increase:

Yr 1: $3.30, 1.89 bil - $63.0 mil mp, $71.0 mil cap (~57%)
Yr 2: $3.47, 1.94 bil - $64.7 mil mp, $72.7 mil cap (~56%)
Yr 3: $3.64, 2.00 bil - $66.7 mil mp, $74.7 mil cap (~55%)
Yr 4: $3.82, 2.07 bil - $69.0 mil mp, $77.0 mil cap (~54%)
Yr 5: $4.01, 2.13 bil - $71.0 mil mp, $78.0 mil cap (~53%)

Yr 6: $4.21, 51% - $71.6 mp, $79.6 mil cap
Yr 7: $4.42, 51% - $75.1 mp, $83.1 mil cap
Yr 8: $4.64, 50% - $77.3 mp, $85.3 mil cap
Yr 9: $4.88, 50% - $81.3 mp, $89.3 mil cap
Yr 10: $5.12, 50% - $85.3 mp, $93.3 mil cap

DL44 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 04:39 PM.

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.