The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX
Of course they didn't receive all the details guys. Three days ago Daly made the VERBAL amendment to a previous proposal. They still need to get all the details.
I don't know how you can keep spinning the NHLPA's poor offers so far.
Just for everyone's information, here is 5% growth rate with flat revenue year 1. I calculated how many UFA dollars are removed each year. In order to get to 50/50, BOTH NHLPA and NHL plans have to reduce contracts by 13% (or 7% of total revenue). The only difference is that the NHLPA plan 'hides' it outside the cap and the NHL plan defers it to future years.
Either way, this 13% has to be paid somehow, sometime, by someone. Now (NHLPA) or later (NHL) and who is to be determined.
Revenue: $3.3B, $3.4B, $3.6B, $3.8B, $4B, $4.1B
Player salary (in pre-lockout dollars, billions): 1.8, 1.4, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5
13% of player salary (millions): $229, 185, 131, 102, 73....
By year 4 the two offers have essentially converged at 1% more for players.
If the NHL absorbs $150M out of $229M of the first year devaluation, that means they are willing to take on 66% of the 'make whole' cost. This would have to be re-evaluated on a yearly basis. If I was the NHLPA, I would negotiate a guaranteed re-calculation of the 'make whole' for the entire term of the CBA (if league revenues do not grow fast enough, there will be shortfalls for more than two years).
I'm sorry, but if the NHLPA aren't willing to wait a little extra time to get the face value paid out on this, they're utterly stupid.
In case someone is going to question my math, these numbers are slightly above what Fehr put in his own memo (I trust capgeek's numbers over his, and I think it's best to be conservative).
Uhm...isn't 50% of $3.3B = $1.65B?
With player salaries at $1.8B would make the difference $150M.
That would mean the NHL absorbs the entire amount???
The other major sports leagues in the US are at 50-50 percentage or less. The NHL will be at that level also. Both sides know that and have admitted as such. The players should not be indignant that they will be "giving up" a percentage again. Average salaries have gone up every year. Nothing to complain about.
On the other side, contracts that were bargained in good faith should be honored. However, the previous CBA had an escrow clause that will almost definitely be present again. The NHL is NOT going to gross 3.3B again this year and may not for some time. I wonder how much of the increases over the past few years have been "growth" as opposed to increases in the Canadian Dollar vs the USD. Suffice it to say, the currency exchange can't be counted on that much more.
The players have stated that last time they rolled back salaries and are unwilling to give back again. Five years ago, I would have said that the players lost the deal. However, the saying goes ...which ever side wants to continue the current deal, won the last deal. The players won the last deal so it's no surprise that they will have to give up a percentage again.
Also, for those of you scoring at home, because all the numbers are relative to HRR, this is a sneaky way of offering 55%, 54%, 53%,52% aka the soft landing that we've all been clamouring for.
I agree this will definitely show us if Fehr really wants to make a deal or not. I do not know how much more the NHL has to give beyond some tweaks. I'm realistic about the offer needing to be something sustainable for the league in the future. The PA needs to recognize that.
Agree. Fehr has already cost the players a lot by rebuffing the NHL framework. I believe that the league coming back again proves that they do want a season (which runs counter to a number of folks that say the fix was in for them to cancel another year).
I didn't think the players will let Fehr get away with thumbing his nose anymore, and will demand he get in a room and work off of this.
Uhm...isn't 50% of $3.3B = $1.65B?
With player salaries at $1.8B would make the difference $150M.
That would mean the NHL absorbs the entire amount???
Yes, but you can't just subtract here because there are teams with open cap space. Cutting $150M would BARELY get the teams under 50/50. Easier to devalue by 13%, then you maintain your cap space: 7%/57%.
Fehr's number is $231M and mine is $229M (based on capgeek, I have a higher number for year two).
Eh, this whole episode is first and foremost a concession by the players (57% revenues reduced to whatever). What's being negotiated is how much they will concede.
Can't concede what you don't have. Previous CBA is history, players have nothing but an offer at this point.
Agree. Fehr has already cost the players a lot by rebuffing the NHL framework. I believe that the league coming back again proves that they do want a season (which runs counter to a number of folks that say the fix was in for them to cancel another year).
I didn't think the players will let Fehr get away with thumbing his nose anymore, and will demand he get in a room and work off of this.
That's what I hate about this entire thing. The NHL's pattern of offers is consistent with a side that really believes that all that's needed is a 'tweak' of the existing system.
The league is doing better than last lockout, they just wanted to do some fine tuning to bring more teams in-line. They have less incentive this year to lockout the players for a whole season. But at the same time, they will always be more able than the players to bear a lost season financially.
The NHLPA has been the side stonewalling here, and again, I'm not sure what their endgame is. Anyone here could see a linked soft-landing coming, so if they get that, the Fehr brothers were useless.
Even worse for the players, even if they sign a soft landing deal now, the owners have their instant 25% rollback because of cancelled games.
Yes, but you can't just subtract here because there are teams with open cap space. Cutting $150M would BARELY get the teams under 50/50. Easier to devalue by 13%, then you maintain your cap space: 7%/57%.
Fehr's number is $231M and mine is $229M (based on capgeek, I have a higher number for year two).
I understand but when I look at Capgeek I only see there are 12 spots to be filled for teams to reach the 23 man rosters they need.
For instance Phoenix does have only $50M committed in salary but they already have 23 players. What will the new floor be? And if needed, should Phoenix sign extra players just to get to the cap floor and roster a 27 man team?
I understand but when I look at Capgeek I only see there are 12 spots to be filled for teams to reach the 23 man rosters they need.
For instance Phoenix does have only $50M committed in salary but they already have 23 players. What will the new floor be? And if needed, should Phoenix sign extra players just to get to the cap floor and roster a 27 man team?
Capgeek fills the gaps in with guys who may or may not play, usually making $500k. Because they have pro contracts, they could conceivably be with the team. Happens every year. I usually consider the cap space to be more important than the guys capgeek has put on the roster until the final roster is finalized in training camp.
New cap will probably be prorated off of the last NHL 50/50 offer if you look it up.
I wonder if fear bothered to ask for specifics in the last three days
Not only that, but it's the same deal except the league offers to absorb a negotiable amount of the make-whole. Why don't they just come back to the table to hear about it?
Of course they won't, because that would mean accepting the linked framework, which they've shown no sign of being willing to do so far.
Meh, I'm less excited now, unless the membership put significant pressure on Fehr in that conference call.
That's not how it works.
The old CBA is in force until a new one is agreed to.
Don't think so. If they would have opened the doors, yes - but I think they shut it down on Sep 15 after giving notice to the union that they were going to.
You can ***** and complain about both sides all you want, but atleast the NHL is making it look like they're trying to figure this thing out.
If the PA can't hit the ground running off this and open up some serious negotiations (I'm not saying they need to sign on the dotted line, just get to the table and talk about things) then I will never, ever feel the same way about the players ever again and I don't think I'm the only one.
It's a damn shame that they're all going to get grouped into this cluster**** as a unit because I'm sure there's alot of guys out there who genuinely want this to be over and done with. Unfortunately for them they're being bullied into sitting there with their arms crossed pouting.
That's not how it works.
The old CBA is in force until a new one is agreed to.
3.1 Term.
ARTICLE 3 DURATION OF AGREEMENT
(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2004 (the “EfectiveDate”),andshalremaininfulforceandefectunt ilmidnightNewYorktime on September 15, 2011, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.
(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a), the NHLPA shall have the right: (i) to terminate this Agreement as of September 15, 2009 by delivery of written notice of termination to the NHL at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2009; or (ii) to extend this Agreement for one additional year to September 15, 2012 by delivery of written notice to the NHL of such election to extend at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2011.
Here is the only reference to term in the previous CBA.
I read through the first page. Maybe more has come out. Did they cancel the classic just to make their newest "propsoal" work? By the way, I'm on the owners side, but f both sides.
So I've been pretty much out of the loop for a week due to the hurricane, just got power back up after five days in the dark and the Winter Classic is canceled. But some new optimism? And so if a deal is reached soon, is the Winter Classic uncanceled?
Don't think so. If they would have opened the doors, yes - but I think they shut it down on Sep 15 after giving notice to the union that they were going to.
You can think what you want. But it's not the case
The old CBA is in place until a new one is agreed to. Go read some labor law. You too Ron C.
If there was no CBA in pace, the players wouldn't have gotten their escrow checks
