I'm certainly no expert on the economics here, but if you look at the contracts in place for the 2012-13 season, they equal $1.74 Billion. (from Capgeek)
There is no way they can get to 50/50 AND honour existing contracts without some sort of deferred payment and rollback.
You are right. In most of the big markets the fans will come back. But in 50% of the leauge that has be stuggling to stay profitable, they may not. Thoes markets are the ones that will suffer from the greed of the big boys who don't want to share cash.
Not sure who you are referring to by "the greed of the big boys". I am assuming you mean the owners. The problem with the current impasse is that the PA would have the owners--the 'big boys'--bear all the risk. So, if the fans revolt or the economy turns down and HRR drops, they take the hit. The PA does not seem to want to take an absolute decrease in revenue under any circumstance and their proposals only work for the league if everything turns out rosy.
The owners may be big and greedy, but they shoulder a huge financial liability if things go wrong. The players can make claim to the first two, but not the third.
No one has mentioned this but if we go on the assumption at some point the nhl's offer gets agreed to at 50/50. which is roughly a 1.6 billion or 8 million increase per team over the cba. Do you think the jets now become a cap team instead of a midcap team?
If u look at the numbers we have 57mil payroll and the cap is set to 59.9 or something. well mind you that 57mil will take a 12 percent haircut so thats about 50mil payroll.
Also in the cba it looks like they haven't talked about realignment or haven't heard anything about it at least.
No one has mentioned this but if we go on the assumption at some point the nhl's offer gets agreed to at 50/50. which is roughly a 1.6 billion or 8 million increase per team over the cba. Do you think the jets now become a cap team instead of a midcap team?
If u look at the numbers we have 57mil payroll and the cap is set to 59.9 or something. well mind you that 57mil will take a 12 percent haircut so thats about 50mil payroll.
Also in the cba it looks like they haven't talked about realignment or haven't heard anything about it at least.
With a 50/50 split, tighter contract controls and increased revenue sharing then yes I believe that the Jets would be able to operate as an upper mid to cap team most years. Having said that our ownership would still be very conscious to the amount of money that they do spend, i.e. they will only spend when it makes sense to spend and will not just spend for the sake of it.
With a 50/50 split, tighter contract controls and increased revenue sharing then yes I believe that the Jets would be able to operate as an upper mid to cap team most years. Having said that our ownership would still be very conscious to the amount of money that they do spend, i.e. they will only spend when it makes sense to spend and will not just spend for the sake of it.
Well I guess part of my point was, If the Jets are too stingy with the money, They might make too much and have to contribute to the revenue sharing. So wouldn't you rather just spend abit more. Your gonna lose that money anyways. Do you remember where they were last year in revenue. All i recall is that they made too much to be given any revenue share.
Well I guess part of my point was, If the Jets are too stingy with the money, They might make too much and have to contribute to the revenue sharing. So wouldn't you rather just spend abit more. Your gonna lose that money anyways. Do you remember where they were last year in revenue. All i recall is that they made too much to be given any revenue share.
What happened last year is that they made too much to qualify for revenue sharing, but didnt make enough so that they had to pay into it. I don't believe contributing to revenue sharing has anything to do with how much you spend on player salaries it is based on where you finish with regards to the other NHL franchises. As it stands right now only the top 10 revenue teams pay into revenue sharing, last year the Jets finished just outside the top 10. What I ment was the Jets wont go out and sign middle to lower end FA's to inflated contracts just because they have the money. The Jets have shown that they are willing to spend the money to retain their core players and have said that they will go after big time players when they are ready to contend. Not having a bunch of bad contracts on your books also gives you more flexibility moving forward which will only help this team remain competetive.
Well I guess part of my point was, If the Jets are too stingy with the money, They might make too much and have to contribute to the revenue sharing. So wouldn't you rather just spend abit more. Your gonna lose that money anyways. Do you remember where they were last year in revenue. All i recall is that they made too much to be given any revenue share.
I just ran my own numbers quickly, 'back of the envelope', as Fehr would say. I could post a detailed accounting later, but the plethora of numbers seems to be clouding the issues for many. Here are my abbreviated premises and conclusions:
1)The deal must be 50/50 and existing contracts must be honoured. Those 2 are now givens. The only issues are, over what period of time and who is paying?
2)To achieve the above (ie, 50/50 and making existing contracts 'whole') would require ~ 440 million dollars of deferred salary over the life of the new CBA. That is the amount of money currently in dispute--peanuts, in the face of a business that will generate well over 20 billion in the next 5-6 years.
3)If each party commits to splitting this amount, that's 220 mill each, over, say, 6 years.
4)For the NHL, that's just over a 1 million per team per year over the life of a 6-year deal, much of which could easily come from the rich teams (rev sharing), with no discernible impact at all.
5)For the players, it would mean a slowing in salary inflation of ~2-3% per year for a number of years, but no money taken out of anyone's pocket., which is a huge deal for anyone under contract.
Summary: There is a deal to be made here, requiring very little movement by both parties. It would be completely irrational and destructive to miss this opportunity. Therefore, I would conclude that a deal will be consummated within a week. If not, I believe the NHL will conclude that they do not have a partner with whom they can work. The real damage will begin shortly thereafter for the players and Fehr's fate will be sealed.
I just ran my own numbers quickly, 'back of the envelope', as Fehr would say. I could post a detailed accounting later, but the plethora of numbers seems to be clouding the issues for many. Here are my abbreviated premises and conclusions:
1)The deal must be 50/50 and existing contracts must be honoured. Those 2 are now givens. The only issues are, over what period of time and who is paying?
2)To achieve the above (ie, 50/50 and making existing contracts 'whole') would require ~ 440 million dollars of deferred salary over the life of the new CBA. That is the amount of money currently in dispute--peanuts, in the face of a business that will generate well over 20 billion in the next 5-6 years.
3)If each party commits to splitting this amount, that's 220 mill each, over, say, 6 years.
4)For the NHL, that's just over a 1 million per team per year over the life of a 6-year deal, much of which could easily come from the rich teams (rev sharing), with no discernible impact at all.
5)For the players, it would mean a slowing in salary inflation of ~2-3% per year for a number of years, but no money taken out of anyone's pocket., which is a huge deal for anyone under contract.
Summary: There is a deal to be made here, requiring very little movement by both parties. It would be completely irrational and destructive to miss this opportunity. Therefore, I would conclude that a deal will be consummated within a week. If not, I believe the NHL will conclude that they do not have a partner with whom they can work. The real damage will begin shortly thereafter for the players and Fehr's fate will be sealed.
Couldn't agree with you more. I said right from the start that we would see hockey by November and I hope Im right so I can stick to my buddies who told me I was a moron. They will settle by Thursday, if not I would be very dissapointed in both parties involved.
I just ran my own numbers quickly, 'back of the envelope', as Fehr would say. I could post a detailed accounting later, but the plethora of numbers seems to be clouding the issues for many. Here are my abbreviated premises and conclusions:
1)The deal must be 50/50 and existing contracts must be honoured. Those 2 are now givens. The only issues are, over what period of time and who is paying?
2)To achieve the above (ie, 50/50 and making existing contracts 'whole') would require ~ 440 million dollars of deferred salary over the life of the new CBA. That is the amount of money currently in dispute--peanuts, in the face of a business that will generate well over 20 billion in the next 5-6 years.
3)If each party commits to splitting this amount, that's 220 mill each, over, say, 6 years.
4)For the NHL, that's just over a 1 million per team per year over the life of a 6-year deal, much of which could easily come from the rich teams (rev sharing), with no discernible impact at all.
5)For the players, it would mean a slowing in salary inflation of ~2-3% per year for a number of years, but no money taken out of anyone's pocket., which is a huge deal for anyone under contract.
Summary: There is a deal to be made here, requiring very little movement by both parties. It would be completely irrational and destructive to miss this opportunity. Therefore, I would conclude that a deal will be consummated within a week. If not, I believe the NHL will conclude that they do not have a partner with whom they can work. The real damage will begin shortly thereafter for the players and Fehr's fate will be sealed.
Nicely said. I too hope, and believe, that we will see a deal signed and all of this mess sorted out and the season will begin November 2nd.
I'll be very, very disappointed if not, because I think we could be very close to a deal here.
That should be the next proposal the NHL submits. Just a piece of paper with that scribbled on it
Oh for sure.
I'm getting very very sick of the players throughout this whole idea. They should have been working on this deal at the begin inning of the season or even last off season. How long does it actually take to become an expert at all things hockey. I'd understand a few months...but Mr. Fehr has been on the job for almost two years.
I'd be more understanding to the player's cause if they had come to play ball. But they didn't.
They keep pulling this alternate view crap. Don't get me wrong...I totally agree with revenue sharing or the players are going to take it right in the rear every time the CBA expires.
But it's not like this was a mystery. It's not like you didn't know this day was coming. This should have started ages ago, especially if the players are seriously going to pull this alternate view crap.
Are they seriously telling me that they didn't see resistance right off the hop?
What the **** are you paying that guy for? Because it seems to me that the only thing mister Fehr has actually accomplished is cost everyone a lot of money.
Don't get me wrong...the owners are too blame as well. Why are you handing out monster contracts when the league is sinking(apparently)? What did you think was going to happen? Same goes with negotiations back 04/05...did you honestly not see this coming as the revenue's increased? I mean seriously?
I'm pretty sure the players knew that this was going to end in a lockout. They really had to. It makes me wonder how much they actually care about the sport or the fans that support.
You know once upon a time, there was a Timmy Ho's commercial. And on it featured a young hockey player, and he said "I can't think of anything better then waking up every morning and playing a game that I love."
I can't remember who said that, but if memory serves he used to play timbit hockey...and he's kind of a big deal.()
Either way...what happened to that kid that just wanted to play hockey? Am I too believe that the hockey players are seriously that jaded?
Seems to me that characterizing what’s happened as “We have offered to pay the players an estimated $1.7B more over the next six years than we paid them over the previous six years and they have said that that’s not good enough” has the advantage of being a) mathematically true and b) sounding like a massive increase in the money offered.
Apparently the league allowed the players and the owners to speak about the latest proposal.
Unfortunately, the league neglected to tell the union this.
I think it was more like 'If a player calls you are allowed to answer certain questions.' But they aren't allowed to actually approach the players and tell them this, because in doing so it could jeopardize CBA negotiations.
Basically I think what was happening was that a few players were contacting GM's to talk, and basically they couldn't say anything, or didn't know what they were allowed to say. This 48-hour lifting of the gag order basically outlined what they could talk about.
But they still can't approach the players and in a sense solicit them by saying, 'hey..you know you can call me to talk about this whole thing, right?'
Friendly ManiBROba
)
