What numbers were the NHLPA using for 13-14 because I get $65.3m assuming 5% compounding growth and 50% split (100% counts on all contracts).
62.5 (70.2)
65.2
68.1
71.1
74.3
77.6
=============
Here's where the numbers would look with a hard 54 52 50 50 50 50 split and 5% compounding growth
70.2 (66.9)
67.5
68.1
71.1
74.3
77.6
All of those years are effectively paying at or above what they players got in 2011-12 ($64.3m cap ceiling). I don't trust 5% compounding growth and I doubt the NHL does either, feels more like something you'd like to happen but it's unreliable.
My cap numbers were assuming that they'd account for the extra money that guarantees existing contracts in their cap calculations. Using the 50/50 split for the cap level while guaranteeing existing contracts wouldn't work because teams would be left with no space as you illustrated earlier. You'd either have to drop existing contracts' cap numbers by 13% or calculate the cap with the extra players' share in mind. I did the latter. The amount owed for existing contracts would be set in stone so it'd be trivial to factor them in when using predicted revenues to set the next year's cap level.
Or you could do the former and reduce the cap hits on existing contracts to account for the non linked portion. In which case the Canucks would have $52.4 million committed for 13-14 with $47.83 million once Luongo is gone.
The current set-up doesn't work. The players are doing the sensical thing by seeking a solution where the cap is de-linked.
Because the NHL has a massive variance between the top revenue teams and the bottom revenue teams, it is almost impossible to sustain a salary cap that is based on macro revenues, while maintaining the micro profitability of all 30 individual teams.
This Lockout is as good as OVER. (i've been thinking it over and it hit me... PLayers just offered 50-50 across the board as well! do you reealize what that means!)
The owners have won.
They will be getting their 50-50 split now, eventually..
the players have conceded that already, and at minimum by Year 3 of the deal...
The remaining battle is player's battle for their remaining principle: please honor the contracts you have signed us to.
The NHL has EVEN agreed to do so! .. BUT they would recoup it later on in the CBA..
And the players are hoping the NHL will at least repay the deferred payments ON TOP of the 50-50 split..(about $300 mil from yr 1 to be deferred - which in the grand scheme of things is not that much relative to the size of the pie)
That's remaining portion of the HRR split battle?? The structure of how to honor the contracts? It's Over.
The question now is... how much dirt does Bettman want to kick on the players? Does he shoehorn in the 5 yr limit as well?
It's OVER. Nov 2nd Opening Night is a virtual lock.
(i'm not sure if i'm a realist or an optimist or out to lunch... you guys please decide for me)
Wonder what would happen if the NHL offered a $40m floor and $70m ceiling, no escrow, no HRR split, all contracts 100%. Just 6 years at a fixed 40m-70m. At a 3% growth that's a win for the players (50% HRR cap wouldn't pass 70 until year 6). At 5% the 50% HRR cap is 70m+ in year 4+.
I'd probably take it if I was the players - you know more and more owners would push $70m over time and you'd come out ahead.
So I hate reading Eklund writers generally but the Edmonton writer had a great paragraph or two on the offers today:
Quote:
The NHL offers the NHLPA a very reasonable new CBA. The NHLPA? More or less ignores the NHL proposal, and shoots back three counter-offers that almost guarantee the entire 2012/2013 season will go down the drain.
Why do this? Just to make me look bad? I've been saying positive stuff on Twitter for the last 24 hours, because EVERYONE was convinced the NHL's offer was going to receive a positive reaction from the players. I have news for you N.H.L.P.A.: I don't need any help to look bad.
The NHLPA's reaction to the NHL's offer today was absolutely appalling. And seeing the smug look on Shawn Horcoff's face while he stood behind Donald Fehr at the news conference made me want to throw my new iPhone through the television. If anyone deserves an immediate pay cut, it's the grossly overpaid, under-achieving Horcoff. Who works in the PR department for the NHLPA? News Flash: Having the players stand behind Fehr during news conferences makes them look like members of an organized crime syndicate. Wait, on second thought, let them stand there. That's exactly what the NHLPA is. The Hell's Angels on skates.
That Edmonton writer is a gob. Seriously, the guy just compared the PA to the Hells Angels with a straight face. How much more intellectually dishonest can you get? He's incapable of reading between the lines, plus everything is black and white.
I suppose its to be expected that from Edmonton fan.
so back to my earlier comment - instead of a immediate 13% cut, go with a 4-5% cut on existing salaries. Agree that existing contracts count as 13% (or 10% or some other number to be negotiated) less towards a salary cap of $57M. Make it so no contract can vary more that 20% in the life of the contract, with a maximum of 6 or 7 years. It would stop owners from signing their lives away. Or say that for any contract of more than 5 years, 40% of the contract counts against cap if the player isnt playing.
And I still like the idea of a soft cap with penalties that get higher the more you go over the cap, and that money goes to revenue sharing.
If the PA wants to make a deal they need to come off the linking of growth to the lowering of the their share in HRR. All these proposals with clauses that "IF the league grows by a x%..." will not get agreed upon by the owners. It needs to be a linear decrease to 50/50. I personally believe that a 6 year deal where in year 1 the players share is 53% and goes down to 50/50 in year 3 will work.
The owners also need to stop trying to redefined HRR and take away all the contractual rights of the players if they want to get a deal done.
There's a deal to be made but both sides are too stubborn to make it right now.
If the PA wants to make a deal they need to come off the linking of growth to the lowering of the their share in HRR. All these proposals with clauses that "IF the league grows by a x%..." will not get agreed upon by the owners. It needs to be a linear decrease to 50/50. I personally believe that a 6 year deal where in year 1 the players share is 53% and goes down to 50/50 in year 3 will work.
The owners also need to stop trying to redefined HRR and take away all the contractual rights of the players if they want to get a deal done.
There's a deal to be made but both sides are too stubborn to make it right now.
The NHL is still looking to redefine HRR (their proposal didn't define it and left it open to discussion, aka they're looking to change it). 2 year ELC's and 10 years to UFA is taking away contractual rights, as is limiting the term to 5 years. The NHLPA will accept one maybe two of these issues but not all of them, the NHL needs to pick and choose which one of these issues is most important to them.
The NHL is still looking to redefine HRR (their proposal didn't define it and left it open to discussion, aka they're looking to change it). 2 year ELC's and 10 years to UFA is taking away contractual rights, as is limiting the term to 5 years. The NHLPA will accept one maybe two of these issues but not all of them, the NHL needs to pick and choose which one of these issues is most important to them.
1 more year added to RFA right?
I'd probably want a longer max term if I was them... 7 years or so.
So it should have come as no surprise to anyone on the entire planet that the League just happened that extend a 50-50 offer on Tuesday that was couched in a lot of the language uncovered by Deadspin's report on its B.S. focus groupery about 16 hours earlier.
Shared sacrifice, indeed. Make no mistake, the League knows exactly why fans have been so quick to turn on it in this labor negotiation when they backed it near-uniformly in the last one: Its draconian power grab is as transparent as the Russian players' threat to stay in the KHL.
That's why the Luntz Global questionnaire had all that stuff about "Which stuff about how greedy all the greedy owners are is the MOST true?" Because everyone saw through that first joke of a proposal this summer, and everyone saw through the petulant, teary-eyed foot-stomping about "The PA hasn't made an offer in weeks!!!"
This Lockout is as good as OVER. (i've been thinking it over and it hit me... PLayers just offered 50-50 across the board as well! do you reealize what that means!)
The owners have won.
They will be getting their 50-50 split now, eventually..
the players have conceded that already, and at minimum by Year 3 of the deal...
The remaining battle is player's battle for their remaining principle: please honor the contracts you have signed us to.
The NHL has EVEN agreed to do so! .. BUT they would recoup it later on in the CBA..
And the players are hoping the NHL will at least repay the deferred payments ON TOP of the 50-50 split..(about $300 mil from yr 1 to be deferred - which in the grand scheme of things is not that much relative to the size of the pie)
That's remaining portion of the HRR split battle?? The structure of how to honor the contracts? It's Over.
The question now is... how much dirt does Bettman want to kick on the players? Does he shoehorn in the 5 yr limit as well?
It's OVER. Nov 2nd Opening Night is a virtual lock.
(i'm not sure if i'm a realist or an optimist or out to lunch... you guys please decide for me)
Not sure as to the soundness of your reasoning, but I would very much like to buy what you're selling, sir.
I'd probably want a longer max term if I was them... 7 years or so.
1 more year added to RFA and 1 more year taken away from the ELC makes it so that the 2nd contract is as much a home run as it is right for young players.
I hope you are not offering the opinion of probably the worst mainstream media hockey blogger on the net as proof. People may not like Wysh much, but he's Pulizter calibre in comparison to Ryan Lambert.
I don't trust 5% compounding growth and I doubt the NHL does either, feels more like something you'd like to happen but it's unreliable.
I ran some numbers on different scenarios of the NHLPA's offer and the percentage shares don't change much even with 0% gross or even compounding losses. The biggest swing between the scenarios doesn't even represent a 1% shift in the share in any given year.
5% revenue growth:
Year 1: 57.2% of 3.2 billion
Year 2: 55.4% of 3.36 billion
Year 3: 53.3% of 3.53 billion
Year 4: 52.2% of 3.7 billion
Year 5: 51.3% of 3.89 billion
Year 6: 51.0% of 4.08 billion
0% revenue growth:
Year 1: 57.2% of 3.2 billion
Year 2: 55.7% of 3.2 billion
Year 3: 53.6% of 3.2 billion
Year 4: 52.6% of 3.2 billion
Year 5: 52.6% of 3.2 billion
Year 6: 51.2% of 3.2 billion
5% losses per year:
Year 1: 57.2% of 3.2 billion
Year 2: 56.0% of 3 billion
Year 3: 54.0% of 2.89 billion
Year 4: 53.0% of 2.74 billion
Year 5: 52.0% of 2.6 billion
Year 6: 51.6% of 2.48 billion
The NHL obviously isn't going to accept that because the percentages are too high, but I don't buy that it's an unreasonable framework. There are ways to make it more palatable and still come in only a bit over 50% for the life of the CBA. They could propose dropping the segregated share from 13% to something lower and/or only guaranteeing that amount for a few years after which is would drop to straight 50/50.
From what's been expected by insiders and my deduction from how the NHL has acted, it seems like they REALLY don't want to play a shortened season. Hopefully a new meeting is scheduled soon because I think they are closer than they think.
I hope you are not offering the opinion of probably the worst mainstream media hockey blogger on the net as proof. People may not like Wysh much, but he's Pulizter calibre in comparison to Ryan Lambert.
I'm providing our board with some information, feel free to do the same if you find something better.
Has anyone questioned the PA about why they are asking the owners to honour the current contracts while trying to get rid of escrow which was a part of these contracts that they signed?
This Lockout is as good as OVER. (i've been thinking it over and it hit me... PLayers just offered 50-50 across the board as well! do you reealize what that means!)
...
(i'm not sure if i'm a realist or an optimist or out to lunch... you guys please decide for me)
You're out to lunch, unfortunately.
Right now we have one side saying "we'll give you half of (what we decide is) hockey related revenue, and we'll pay you back your initial losses (our of your own salary)."
The other side is saying "well, half sounds acceptable, we'll take half of what we project hockey related revenue to be."
Which is all well and good and it sounds like they are on the same page, except one side is asking for a hard salary cap directly linked to revenue (oh yeah and they probably want to reduce what is recognized as "revenue" while they're at it) and the other will have nothing to do with any direct linkage at all, they want to project a healthy level of growth and link the salary cap to those numbers.
Basically the players won't agree to the cost certainty that the entire 2004-05 lockout was fought over (from the owners perspective), if the owners took the players proposal and the economy went into the tank they would be absolutely screwed and the split would be nowhere near the "50/50" mark.
Both sides have arbitrarily come up with numbers that allow them to say "we will agree to a 50/50 split" but the manner in which they've arrived at those are so drastically different that there's little common ground in that respect.
They are closer than they were a month ago and they may pull things out over the next week but assuming that it's a done deal based on how far apart they are now is wildly optimistic.
Has anyone questioned the PA about why they are asking the owners to honour the current contracts while trying to get rid of escrow which was a part of these contracts that they signed?
Escrow is part of the cba, not their service contracts. And they aren't trying to get rid of escrow, they just don't want to take another pay cut to cover the owners mistakes.
if the owners took the players proposal and the economy went into the tank
This is why the owners are taking such a hard line right now imo, the U.S. economy is in the tank. They aren't going to be able to claim poor much longer, by the time this deal expires, the economy in the states should be be back or well on its way.
