HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Anaheim Ducks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

New CBA offer from NHL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2012, 02:12 AM
  #76
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 17,648
vCash: 500
are they really "folding" when they all have guaranteed contracts? the NHL has a right to try and have 30 teams able to make money, the players do not have to invest their money marketing the sport, the teams pay for all the travel and equipment, the teams pay for all their meals, give them a per diem on the road. the NHL has every right to try and get a 50/50 deal, I Don't fault players for wanting a fair deal but they are stupid to lose paychecks their careers are to short to be losing any

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 06:15 AM
  #77
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,380
vCash: 50
Every other league has a split around 50-50. Those leagues also make more money than hockey, meaning that they should get more profit (fixed costs being less likely to scale).If anything, the NHL should give the players even less because of this.

Other players in other sports find 50% to be enough, so yes the hockey players are being greedy.

I do understand though that the league should not expect all profit to come from cutting player costs. Revenue sharing should have been offered sooner and with greater amounts, also to try to match what other leagues have.

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 10:44 AM
  #78
Gliff
Nick Bonino
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
Every other league has a split around 50-50. Those leagues also make more money than hockey, meaning that they should get more profit (fixed costs being less likely to scale).If anything, the NHL should give the players even less because of this.

Other players in other sports find 50% to be enough, so yes the hockey players are being greedy.

I do understand though that the league should not expect all profit to come from cutting player costs. Revenue sharing should have been offered sooner and with greater amounts, also to try to match what other leagues have.
What other leagues have might nmot be a good thing. The Pirates have not had a winning season in like 30 years and they havent lost money once since they got revenue sharing. Revenue sharing promotes mediocrity and makes owners just want to make money by playing safe rather then needing to win.

Gliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 11:27 AM
  #79
Exit Dose
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cerritos, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gliff View Post
What other leagues have might nmot be a good thing. The Pirates have not had a winning season in like 30 years and they havent lost money once since they got revenue sharing. Revenue sharing promotes mediocrity and makes owners just want to make money by playing safe rather then needing to win.
The Pirates are kind of on an extreme example, though. I don't doubt that we'll see a team or two that are run that way; Charles Wang is my candidate.

Exit Dose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 08:51 PM
  #80
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,380
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gliff View Post
What other leagues have might nmot be a good thing. The Pirates have not had a winning season in like 30 years and they havent lost money once since they got revenue sharing. Revenue sharing promotes mediocrity and makes owners just want to make money by playing safe rather then needing to win.
Good point. They could have some sort of "improving" metric in order to stay eligible for revenue sharing. They already do have something like that.

snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 10:34 AM
  #81
TheJoeMan
In Bob We Trust
 
TheJoeMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,655
vCash: 500
Can someone explain something for me? I'm totally at a loss as to how players will actually make less money on their contracts once they go to 50-50. I understand that the cap will go down but if there's not a rollback in salaries why are players giving money back? It's not like every team has spent to the cap, most haven't. Wouldn't most team be under the new cap anyway? Maybe I'm just completely lost and aren't paying close enough attention so can someone please explain it to me?

TheJoeMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 10:51 AM
  #82
Gliff
Nick Bonino
 
Gliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 8,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exit Dose View Post
The Pirates are kind of on an extreme example, though. I don't doubt that we'll see a team or two that are run that way; Charles Wang is my candidate.
It happens in every league. It only takes 1 team to make the league a laughing stock. The Clippers are a local team who has done it forever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by snarktacular View Post
Good point. They could have some sort of "improving" metric in order to stay eligible for revenue sharing. They already do have something like that.
I dont think any team that lost money should make money from revenue sharing. Break even at the most.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJoeMan View Post
Can someone explain something for me? I'm totally at a loss as to how players will actually make less money on their contracts once they go to 50-50. I understand that the cap will go down but if there's not a rollback in salaries why are players giving money back? It's not like every team has spent to the cap, most haven't. Wouldn't most team be under the new cap anyway? Maybe I'm just completely lost and aren't paying close enough attention so can someone please explain it to me?
I am not an expert but I think this is how it works.

Back in 2004 they took a 24% rollback, which means (lets just round to 25% for math ) if a player had a 10 million per year contract, it was rolled back to 7.5. This hurt alot of the top end players. BUT, the average salary went from like 800k to over 2 million over the term of this CBA, so the players actually won in the end.

In the new CBA offer all has to do with escrow (here is where I am unclear) and the money gets taken out over the term of the contract. The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere is the players. They are being greedy by not taking 50-50. Every major sport has that arrangement. It is fair and makes it a win-win when the league grows instead of this CBA where only the players benefited.

Gliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 11:39 AM
  #83
snarktacular
Moderator
Ducks tank is on!
 
snarktacular's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 16,380
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJoeMan View Post
Can someone explain something for me? I'm totally at a loss as to how players will actually make less money on their contracts once they go to 50-50. I understand that the cap will go down but if there's not a rollback in salaries why are players giving money back? It's not like every team has spent to the cap, most haven't. Wouldn't most team be under the new cap anyway? Maybe I'm just completely lost and aren't paying close enough attention so can someone please explain it to me?
The players will likely lose money. It's because the system of the cap. Currently the cap is is not set at 57%, but the midpoint is set at 57%.

I'm too lazy to go through to confirm, but I feel that too many teams are spending too close to the cap when they shouldn't. Based on how the system was designed, the median payroll should be at the midpoint, with roughly equal numbers of teams spending above and below the cap. Also as many teams should be at the cap max as the cap min. I think in reality there are too many teams spending too much and not enough teams spending lower. That's where the organizations also hold responsibility in why they are losing money now. They are voluntarily spending above their means. This would be corrected by escrow. I haven't been paying attention to what escrow has been doing, but if escrow is pulling larger and larger amounts from players' contracts then this would be why it's doing that. Basically if players get too much money, then escrow will reduce current contracts (it gets given to the teams rather than being redistributed to the players).

If a 50-50 split drops the new cap to below the midpoint, then players will probably make less money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gliff View Post
I dont think any team that lost money should make money from revenue sharing. Break even at the most.
That's a fine condition to add too. But what I meant was that currently there is some sort of system. Basically if a team takes revenue sharing one year, it impacts their eligibility the next year. I think there's also some performance improvement (ie standings points) requirement to remain eligible. Eligibility does not just refer to simple eligible/not eligible but also how much they can get paid.


Last edited by snarktacular: 10-22-2012 at 11:44 AM.
snarktacular is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 01:10 PM
  #84
gratefulyours
Great 8 = T. Selanne
 
gratefulyours's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Oakland
Country: United States
Posts: 4,508
vCash: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJoeMan View Post
Can someone explain something for me? I'm totally at a loss as to how players will actually make less money on their contracts once they go to 50-50. I understand that the cap will go down but if there's not a rollback in salaries why are players giving money back? It's not like every team has spent to the cap, most haven't. Wouldn't most team be under the new cap anyway? Maybe I'm just completely lost and aren't paying close enough attention so can someone please explain it to me?
think of the players share as a pie.

every player gets a piece cut out for him when they get a contract.

if the the revenue stays exactly the same,
and the percentage drops from 57% to 50%,
new contracts given out to players will have less pie to work with and cause a drop in player salaries.

it is entirely possible for the hrr % to drop and still have the players make more money than they are now...if the league grows.

the reverse is also possible.

gratefulyours is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 03:27 PM
  #85
Paul4587
Moderator
 
Paul4587's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 13,948
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJoeMan View Post
Can someone explain something for me? I'm totally at a loss as to how players will actually make less money on their contracts once they go to 50-50. I understand that the cap will go down but if there's not a rollback in salaries why are players giving money back? It's not like every team has spent to the cap, most haven't. Wouldn't most team be under the new cap anyway? Maybe I'm just completely lost and aren't paying close enough attention so can someone please explain it to me?
There is no rollback but the players pay the difference between 57 and 50% later on, through escrow.

Paul4587 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 08:44 PM
  #86
AngelDuck
Registered User
 
AngelDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
According to twitter sources...the PA has requested a meeting with the NHL tomorrow. Praying they can agree on some things at least.

AngelDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 08:53 PM
  #87
Gibson Les Palms
Registered User
 
Gibson Les Palms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,463
vCash: 50
A few people I follow also mentioned that the NHLPA isn't interested in talking about the NHL proposal and doesn't have a new one. Just running around in circles right now.

Gibson Les Palms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 09:02 PM
  #88
AngelDuck
Registered User
 
AngelDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,749
vCash: 500
Now the NHL is saying they won't meet with the PA unless it's to discuss the offer by the NHL. **** this. A deal is never getting done.

AngelDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 09:06 PM
  #89
Gibson Les Palms
Registered User
 
Gibson Les Palms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,463
vCash: 50
Katie Strang

#CBA Asked via email whether he anticipates a meeting tomorrow, or at all this week, NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly replied: "No"

ugh. Could be a tactic though.

Gibson Les Palms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 10:15 PM
  #90
Hockey Duckie
Registered User
 
Hockey Duckie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: southern cal
Posts: 2,772
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gliff View Post
It happens in every league. It only takes 1 team to make the league a laughing stock. The Clippers are a local team who has done it forever.
You're a bit misleading here. The Clippers actually make profit, thus no revenue sharing needed. LA is a huge metropolis to where its stadium can accomodate a lot of fans. Usually it will be packed with other team's fans because the seats are cheaper than Laker seats.

The Clippers also share their playing field with two other professional teams, LA Lakers (NBA) and LA Kings (NHL). Thus saving them some money.

And as for not willing to win, that's a misnomer of an idea. I'm a Clippers fan and must attest that our sorry organization was sorry due to a terrible GM for several years. The owner doesn't know anything about basketball and relies on those he has hired. The GM that ran the Clippers to the ground and then under it is a Hall of Famer. So listening to the wrong people will lead to terrible decisions. The Clippers have the same owner, but have had many different GM's to help change the culture to where they have two of the top 10 players in the NBA. The Clippers haven't had players worth paying top dollar for before until the past 10 years. Now, it seems as though lots of players are willing to join the Clippers.

Hockey Duckie 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 04:18 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.