People should also consider currency appreciation. Since 04/05 the Canadian dollar has increased ~25%. According to thestar.com, 33% of ticket revenue came from Canada's 6 teams (Winnipeg should be ignored here). That means ~8% of the NHL's 44% growth since the last lockout can be attributed to the raise of the Canadian dollar against the US. If you exclude currency appreciation, NHL revenue growth is closer to 5% than 6.35%.
I think 5% continued growth may prove difficult of the league, and if the Canadian dollar depreciates there is significant risk that the owners take on that players don't. I agree there should be provisions to ease the players share towards 50/50 over a span of time (say, three years), but it is ridiculous to peg it to something as uncertain as growth.
Please note that is very rough math and a lot of assumptions are used (like percentage of Canadian ticket revenue would relate well to total revenue).
People should also consider currency appreciation. Since 04/05 the Canadian dollar has increased ~25%. According to thestar.com, 33% of ticket revenue came from Canada's 6 teams (Winnipeg should be ignored here). That means ~8% of the NHL's 44% growth since the last lockout can be attributed to the raise of the Canadian dollar against the US. If you exclude currency appreciation, NHL revenue growth is closer to 5% than 6.35%.
I think 5% continued growth may prove difficult of the league, and if the Canadian dollar depreciates there is significant risk that the owners take on that players don't. I agree there should be provisions to ease the players share towards 50/50 over a span of time (say, three years), but it is ridiculous to peg it to something as uncertain as growth.
Please note that is very rough math and a lot of assumptions are used (like percentage of Canadian ticket revenue would relate well to total revenue).
Sorry the revelant point is that continued growth in the NHL in Canada will come from ****ing the season's ticket holders over and keep increasing ticket prices. Thx Aqua weinie, you have ****ed me a ton already. I really wish a serious NHLFA group would come along. (I was a rep for the group 8-9 years ago - they did nothing.)
How does everyone feel about the 48-hour period NHL gave the PA to talk to GM's and owners? And they didn't even know...for shame NHL.
The players didn't know likely because for the NHL to extend an offer to talk outside of using the PA governing body wouldn't be perceived as anything but an end run around the leadership promoted by the league. Something that is not allowed in negotiations and is not good for potential future court proceedings.
The only thing they could really do is say "if the player contacts you about clarification on the offer you can provide that clarification but you can NOT talk about potential alternative offers or gives/takes, starting a new union, ditching the union head etc." The hope is the same...players that contact the team then talk to teammates etc. But they couldn't advertise it.
Well except now they have cleverly advertised such a thing might be available to the players in a wholly legal way. Now if players have questions and enough GMs/owners tell the league they have players calling a second window could be provided. I'm sure the PA will have moles during such a window so the memo and letter takes the league entity off the hook in case something else is said and allows the league to levy a serious fine if it does. But the message gets out.
How does everyone feel about the 48-hour period NHL gave the PA to talk to GM's and owners? And they didn't even know...for shame NHL.
It isn't a 48 hour period for the PA to speak with owners, it is for the players themselves to speak directly with owners/management. Although the PA wasn't notified, I'm sure that select players were told of it directly.
I'm sure that it is by design that the PA wasn't informed. The league is trying to bypass union leadership to communicate directly with players. It likely wants to get a message out there without it being channelled through the Fehr filter. Like it or not, it is what it is. Maybe it will result in a groundswell amongst the PA membership to get a deal done.
More likely another shady move by the NHL further solidifies the unions position and derails negotiations further.
Maybe.
But consider that the PA's membership is a fairly diverse group. If it means an immediate reduction in salaries is avoided, it's in the interests of the Sidney Crosbys and Ovechkins of the league to hold out longer and perhaps even sacrifice a season because of their signing bonuses, front-loaded multi-million dollar long term deals, and the option of lucrative overseas contracts.
The meat and potatoes guys are a different story. They're on 1 or 2 year deals and on average have short careers. These are the guys who are actually hurt by missed paycheques. They're bound to be feeling the pinch of mortgage payments and private school fees by now. Scuttling a season over a fraction of their salary makes no sense for them. Also consider where these guys are likely getting their advice from - the same player agents who rep the superstars. Agents are motivated by self-interest and are likely telling the 4th liners that its best for them to toe the PA line. Agents just want to be able to protect the big deals.
Even Fehr's motivations are probably misaligned with much of the PA's membership. I'm sure he's more interested in protecting the salaries of a handful of superstars rather than the bulk of the PA's membership. From a personal perspective, he also may be more inclined to go to war than negotiate a deal. He was hired in the first place because he's a pitbull, and he needs to live up to his reputation, consequences to the league and players be damned. If he can stick it the NHL, maybe the NFLPA comes a-knocking at his door a few years from now.
Maybe the league making an end run around the union will result in the 3rd and 4th liners and guys on 2-way deals pounding down Fehr's door and forcing him to end the brinksmanship game he's been playing.
But consider that the PA's membership is a fairly diverse group. If it means an immediate reduction in salaries is avoided, it's in the interests of the Sidney Crosbys and Ovechkins of the league to hold out longer and perhaps even sacrifice a season because of their signing bonuses, front-loaded multi-million dollar long term deals, and the option of lucrative overseas contracts.
The meat and potatoes guys are a different story. They're on 1 or 2 year deals and on average have short careers. These are the guys who are actually hurt by missed paycheques. They're bound to be feeling the pinch of mortgage payments and private school fees by now. Scuttling a season over a fraction of their salary makes no sense for them. Also consider where these guys are likely getting their advice from - the same player agents who rep the superstars. Agents are motivated by self-interest and are likely telling the 4th liners that its best for them to toe the PA line. Agents just want to be able to protect the big deals.
Even Fehr's motivations are probably misaligned with much of the PA's membership. I'm sure he's more interested in protecting the salaries of a handful of superstars rather than the bulk of the PA's membership. From a personal perspective, he also may be more inclined to go to war than negotiate a deal. He was hired in the first place because he's a pitbull, and he needs to live up to his reputation, consequences to the league and players be damned. If he can stick it the NHL, maybe the NFLPA comes a-knocking at his door a few years from now.
Maybe the league making an end run around the union will result in the 3rd and 4th liners and guys on 2-way deals pounding down Fehr's door and forcing him to end the brinksmanship game he's been playing.
I don't agree with this at all. The stars always find a way to make their money, it's everyone else that gets cut out.
That's slightly misleading. The 'de-linked' portion of the the players' proposal is simply the 13% of present contract values. But it is a fixed and known amount going forward.
100% of every new contract going forward and 87% of present contracts would still be subject to the 50-50 split, as well as escrow... i.e. linked.
So altho slightly de-linked... it is still a negotiable point by the league according to Bettman.
i.e. if the players accept the other points and contract restrictions, the owners have suggested they DO have flexibility to accept paying the 13% to a certain degree. (to what degree is unknown and subject to the ongoing negotiation obviously)
Fehr stated as such in the Ottawa Sun article and in the letter to the players.
Are you talking about the proposal he gave verbally or the one which was written on a napkin...
Sounds like the NHL is holding firm on the non revenue split issues:
Quote:
Aaron Ward @aaronward_nhl
NHLPA source,sense NHL open to negotiating 'making whole' aspect but still holding firm on all other components of last offer 'as is' #TSN
Frankly I'd probably rather see a lockout than to have that 5+ year contract rule come into effect. That could seriously screw the Canucks for half a decade if Luongo retires at 38.
That could seriously screw the Canucks for half a decade if Luongo retires at 38.
We've been carrying a 4.2m 6th defensemen for going on 3 seasons now, maybe it's that kind of luxury we won't be able to afford? I understand the concern but I'm not sure 5.3m is going to seriously screw us, especially 6 years from now.
We've been carrying a 4.2m 6th defensemen for going on 3 seasons now, maybe it's that kind of luxury we won't be able to afford? I understand the concern but I'm not sure 5.3m is going to seriously screw us, especially 6 years from now.
Yeah, but there's always been the option to get rid of Ballard if they really needed his space. If the Canucks managed to successfully get Weber I'm sure Ballard would've been on the first plane out of Vancouver. If Luongo retires at age 37-38 then the Canucks will be looking at 4-5 years of dead cap space with no chance of relief.
$5.3 million certainly isn't pocket change; it's probably the sum total of the Sedins, Kesler, Bieksa, and Burrows' home town discounts. I know I'll be choked if the Canucks lose the equivalent of that just because Bettman and a few owners don't like long term deals.
Is anyone seriously saying that the 5+ year deal applies to exisitng contracts? I doubt that is the intention.
Don't understand why it would apply to current contracts either, otherwise the GM's that dished out those deals wouldn't have in the first place probably. Also, I don't think just bringing in a new rule that applies to already existing contracts isn't fair, as that wasn't in the last CBA which was when the existing contracts were signed under, not this proposed one; so why should GM's be punished with having a new 5+ year deal that didn't even exist at that time?
Is anyone seriously saying that the 5+ year deal applies to exisitng contracts? I doubt that is the intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PG Canuck
Don't understand why it would apply to current contracts either, otherwise the GM's that dished out those deals wouldn't have in the first place probably. Also, I don't think just bringing in a new rule that applies to already existing contracts isn't fair, as that wasn't in the last CBA which was when the existing contracts were signed under, not this proposed one; so why should GM's be punished with having a new 5+ year deal that didn't even exist at that time?
Of course it would apply to existing contracts. Their proposal included a 5 year limit on new contracts so if no new contracts longer than 5 years were allowed, then what would that rule cover?
Here's the language from the NHL's offer:
Quote:
All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.
Of course it would apply to existing contracts. Their proposal included a 5 year limit on new contracts so if no new contracts longer than 5 years were allowed, then what would that rule cover?
Exactly. Bettman is pissed and he's gonna try and get back at the teams that made him look bad.
