QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?
FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."
Bettman said on September 13 the NHL had made their offer and the PA had until the 15th to accept it. If they didn't accept it,the offers would get worse. Stern said the same thing last fall. Things were not looking good. All of a sudden,the owners and PA met on Black Friday and a CBA was hammered out after a marathon negotiating session. The NHL's offer improved.
Proposal 3: 50% split is an immediate 13% reduction. 13% of salaries is exempt of escrow. This part is guaranteed. The remaining 87% is subject to the 50% calculation of revenues.
Creative and fair. Players ask for 13% in escrow exempt salary.
So who is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise again?
A great rundown of all three of the PAs proposals.
They are right there. Getting to 50% by Year 3. Current salaries are the only holdup. It would be downright silly to not get a deal done in time to play 82 games. Once games are missed, the very salary they are fighting for is missed. If they already are agreed on 50-50 for the end of the CBA, it makes no sense to not work something out to get the very money the players are fighting over.
Proposal 3: 50% split is an immediate 13% reduction. 13% of salaries is exempt of escrow. This part is guaranteed. The remaining 87% is subject to the 50% calculation of revenues.
Creative and fair. Players ask for 13% in escrow exempt salary.
So who is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise again?
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.
The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.
The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).
The NHL already offered teams allowing to go 13% over the cap in year one. The union is just saying "great, lets not charge escrow on that overage." If its a transition, then it kinda makes sense.
The NHL already offered teams allowing to go 13% over the cap in year one. The union is just saying "great, lets not charge escrow on that overage." If its a transition, then it kinda makes sense.
There's a dramatic difference between up to 13% over in the first year with escrow and up to 13% until the last remaining current deal expires and without escrow.
There are lots of ways to meet in the middle, but the union has to get over this idea that every penny of every current contract gets paid on time and without escrow regardless of how much HRR grows. (Hell, they didn't even have that under the old deal!)
Fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage of growth beginning from the current base are non-starters. The PA needs to move towards the owners with a deal that meets them in the middle. Plenty of options:
- The old system, but with gradually declining splits
- Make-whole paid back over time exceeding the cap by a fixed % until such time as all deals are "back on schedule" under the cap
- Capped escrow
- The PA's "proposal 3", but at something like 7% as opposed to 13%
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-20-2012 at 12:16 PM.
There's a dramatic difference between up to 13% over in the first year with escrow and up to 13% until the last remaining current deal expires and without escrow.
I'm not sure that's what it said, but I admittedly haven't read it yet since I'm on my phone.
By the time they get to year 3, at the latest, they shouldn't need the escrow free portion of their salaries anymore, provided they hit the 5% growth projections.
I'm pretty sure it's 13% of contracts cannot be reduced by escrow. I don't take it to mean players are asking for 13% of revenues on top of 50/50.
Basically, if you make $100 this season $13 cannot be reduced by escrow reductions. If player share of revenues exceed 50%, $87 can be subject to escrow reductions.
I'm pretty sure it's 13% of contracts cannot be reduced by escrow. I don't take it to mean players are asking for 13% of revenues on top of 50/50.
Basically, if you make $100 this season $13 cannot be reduced by escrow reductions. If player share of revenues exceed 50%, $87 can be subject to escrow reductions.
Can someone read the article and confirm my take?
DS, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that my interpretation is correct...
Quote:
Option 3: This idea proceeds from an entirely different approach. We take two principles of this negotiation: the owners stated desire to reduce the players share to 50% of HRR, and the Players position that there is no reason to go backwards. This proposal bases that second principle on existing player contracts, not the players’ share. Here is how it works:
• A reduction to 50% from 57% of HRR is a 12.3% cut (that is, 7/57), but the loss in an individual player’s salary would be about 13%. (This is because benefit costs do not fall and these come off the top.)
• The owners honor all existing player contracts. We do this by dividing an existing contract, on a yearly basis, into two separate parts: the 13% and the remaining 87%. The 13% is paid to the player in any event, and it is not counted in the players share and is also off the cap.
• The remaining 87% of existing contracts, plus all new contracts, go into the players’ share (plus all benefits). Thus constructed, the players share will become 50% of HRR, immediately.
• This means that an individual player under an existing contract would receive the 13% segregated, plus a normal payment, subject to escrow, of 87% of his salary. A player with a new contract would have 100% of his salary subject to the 50/50 split. However, since the 13% of existing contracts are off the cap, this should create more cap space, which will be important as the cap will be squeezed.
• Over time, the existing contracts expire, and the share will fall towards 50%. Below is a chart showing the anticipated savings, but these could be greater if there are a significant number of buyouts.
In other words, you can exceed the 50% mark by 13% before escrow kicks in on any current contract. This effectively makes the cap 57% this year (50% x 1.13) and it only declines as NEW contracts get signed that don't have the ability to exceed the 50%. As new contracts begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall number of contracts, you get closer and closer to "true" 50%, but you don't actually get there until the last current contract expires (Shea Weber's deal, in 2026).
Again, they need to move to the middle and give up the idea that they're going to get every penny of every existing contract on time and without escrow regardless of HRR growth.
Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-20-2012 at 12:50 PM.
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.
The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).
Thank you.. saved me the time. Its "superficially" 50/50 but in reality the players share will exceed 50% split until all current deals expire.
I understand what Fehr is trying to accomplish but reality needs to set in, the owners are not going accept anything less than 50% hard split.
DS, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that my interpretation is correct...
In other words, you can exceed the 50% mark by 13% before escrow kicks in on any current contract. This effectively makes the cap 57% this year (50% x 1.13) and it only declines as NEW contracts get signed that don't have the ability to exceed the 50%. As new contracts begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall number of contracts, you get closer and closer to "true" 50%, but you don't actually get there until the last current contract expires (Shea Weber's deal, in 2026).
Again, they need to move to the middle and give up the idea that they're going to get every penny of every existing contract on time and without escrow regardless of HRR growth.
Yeah, i was thinking all counted to the 50% but 13% of salary was guaranteed. 2/3 of contacts expire in 2 seasons. Not the best or worst scenario. Capping escrow is the best route.
BRF, the NHL should just offer to lop off 13% of HRR before calculating the players share and thereby exploding the escrow payment on the 87% of players salary.
It's a reasonable concept and proposal if it was done the way I was thinking before I read the article. Not so much this way.
A great rundown of all three of the PAs proposals.
I don't see a single proposal where the players aren't getting more than 50% over the next 5 years. The lowest the players get is 51.5% on any of those proposals. Which sounds "close" until you figure in the added benefit of the first couple years it's all at 54% or 55%.
Fehr states he is "combining" the owners desire to get down to 50% with the players desire to honor all existing contracts.
Yeah.... you eventually get down to 50% just in time to have the CBA expire and we can do this all over again.
If the players want their existing contracts honored, they should take less than 50% in future years to make up for it.
Oh, they should take less than 50% now in the future? Give me a break.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
First two years should be at 54 and 52 so that the players contracts can be honored fully under the cap. After that they could have year 3 at 50 and years 4 and beyond at 49 that way the average split of the CBA is closer to 50/50. Players get their contracts kept as is and the owners get their 50/50 split.
First two years should be at 54 and 52 so that the players contracts can be honored fully under the cap. After that they could have year 3 at 50 and years 4 and beyond at 49 that way the average split of the CBA is closer to 50/50. Players get their contracts kept as is and the owners get their 50/50 split.
There is 0.00000000000% chance the NHLPA goes anywhere near that.
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?
The "make whole" is BS. The players get their full contract paid by themselves... That's the issue. They get paid the next two years by their future selves. Overall still lose that money.
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?
The problem with the make whole clause is that the amount that the players get paid out of the fund counts against their part of the revenue stream. So, the players are funding their own salaries instead of it coming out of the owners share.
