HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Daly Secret Affehrs & Midnight Rendezvous (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XX

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2012, 12:04 AM
  #601
Midas0
Only the best Scouts
 
Midas0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Peterborough, Ontari
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,683
vCash: 500
Boys.. I'm feeling it. I think we'll see hockey on December 1st. This is it.

Midas0 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 12:37 AM
  #602
Some Other Flame
Registered User
 
Some Other Flame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Everything suggests...? Did you miss the PA's last of three proposals weeks back? Proposal 3 was COMPLETELY centred around a 50/50 so long as the owners front the make whole portion.
Nope. But looks like sure you did.

NHL's Proposal:
Quote:
The concept of "Make Whole" is a protection plan to cover player salary reduction in dropping the players revenue share from 57 per cent to 50 per cent in Year 1 of a new CBA.
Proposal 3:
Quote:
Players propose here that 13 per cent of revenues would not count toward the players’ share or the salary cap and are instead used to pay existing contracts. The remaining 87 per cent is then distributed among players as part of a 50-50 sharing of that remaining revenue. The NHLPA indicated this option would involve both sides receiving a 50-per-cent share by Year 5 but that was disputed by the league in a press release.

Some Other Flame is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 12:45 AM
  #603
Spezza19
GO SENS GO!!
 
Spezza19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,545
vCash: 500
This is a great analogy of where things are at from Travis Yost:

It's the ninth inning, team's up a run, and Mariano Rivera's coming in for the save. Confidence is oozing, and it feels like the end-game is on the horizon.

Spezza19 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 12:47 AM
  #604
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Right so this isn't much of a change. I don't get it.
If I'm reading this proposal right*, AND remembering the old CBA right*, the change is something like this...

FROM; bonus money counts until it becomes unachievable

TO: bonus money doesn't count until it is achieved

My off-the-cuff reaction is that I'm not crazy about bonuses becoming an issue at the end, rather than the beginning of a season. It's easy to foresee GMs painting themselves into a corner and having to scratch or waive players down the playoff stretch. Or, good teams signing a guy they can't really afford under the cap, on the basis of stacking up a huge divisional lead and then just scratching him for meaningless games. GMs love to game the system (and that's their job, to be fair) and the old CBA forced them to be conservative with bonuses.

Of course, it's easy to see why the players would like this change. It means more "potential" cash gets squeezed in under the cap, and ultimately means some teams will be free to spend more actual dollars toward the ceiling, while others can't use unreachable bonuses to game the cap floor. Bottom line is more money toward real-life salaries, though the amount of the increase is kind of hard to guess in advance.

I dunno, maybe it just moves the problem behavior from the floor to the ceiling. Doesn't really fix anything, but I'm not positive it makes things worse either. My misgiving is that it's another chance for GMs to create a butterfly effect out of what ought to be a minor detail.

* in other words, if a blind squirrel just found two nuts

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 01:29 AM
  #605
Better Call Saul
Registered User
 
Better Call Saul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 5,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spezza19 View Post
This is a great analogy of where things are at from Travis Yost:

It's the ninth inning, team's up a run, and Mariano Rivera's coming in for the save. Confidence is oozing, and it feels like the end-game is on the horizon.
Until Don Fehr's like...





Better Call Saul is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 01:32 AM
  #606
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
If I'm reading this proposal right*, AND remembering the old CBA right*, the change is something like this...

FROM; bonus money counts until it becomes unachievable

TO: bonus money doesn't count until it is achieved

My off-the-cuff reaction is that I'm not crazy about bonuses becoming an issue at the end, rather than the beginning of a season. It's easy to foresee GMs painting themselves into a corner and having to scratch or waive players down the playoff stretch. Or, good teams signing a guy they can't really afford under the cap, on the basis of stacking up a huge divisional lead and then just scratching him for meaningless games. GMs love to game the system (and that's their job, to be fair) and the old CBA forced them to be conservative with bonuses.

Of course, it's easy to see why the players would like this change. It means more "potential" cash gets squeezed in under the cap, and ultimately means some teams will be free to spend more actual dollars toward the ceiling, while others can't use unreachable bonuses to game the cap floor. Bottom line is more money toward real-life salaries, though the amount of the increase is kind of hard to guess in advance.

I dunno, maybe it just moves the problem behavior from the floor to the ceiling. Doesn't really fix anything, but I'm not positive it makes things worse either. My misgiving is that it's another chance for GMs to create a butterfly effect out of what ought to be a minor detail.

* in other words, if a blind squirrel just found two nuts
It costs the low revenue teams in real dollars. There is a bunch of wealth transfer in some of these side issues from poor to rich. It does not impress me.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 01:59 AM
  #607
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
It costs the low revenue teams in real dollars. There is a bunch of wealth transfer in some of these side issues from poor to rich. It does not impress me.
I'm willing to wait and see how they tweak revenue sharing before getting too concerned.

IMO, the PA hit the nail squarely on the head with their first proposal that dealt primarily with revenue sharing as a vehicle for balancing the league's finances. Not that salaries didn't also need adjustment, but it's equally on the owners to build 30 healthy franchises. If they can take this opportunity to plug some leaks and stabilize some of the so-called problem franchises, that will be a major step forward and could signal a tidal shift in the league's prosperity. Some of these other little concessions might help pacify the teams that would be paying the most into such a system, by giving them a slight competitive advantage in the league they're helping to build. Long term, that advantage will dissipate and the need for RS will evaporate as weaker teams grow stronger. It could fix a lot of large-scale problems.

If they don't screw it up.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 02:17 AM
  #608
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm willing to wait and see how they tweak revenue sharing before getting too concerned.

IMO, the PA hit the nail squarely on the head with their first proposal that dealt primarily with revenue sharing as a vehicle for balancing the league's finances. Not that salaries didn't also need adjustment, but it's equally on the owners to build 30 healthy franchises. If they can take this opportunity to plug some leaks and stabilize some of the so-called problem franchises, that will be a major step forward and could signal a tidal shift in the league's prosperity. Some of these other little concessions might help pacify the teams that would be paying the most into such a system, by giving them a slight competitive advantage in the league they're helping to build. Long term, that advantage will dissipate and the need for RS will evaporate as weaker teams grow stronger. It could fix a lot of large-scale problems.

If they don't screw it up.
Current proposal from the NHL is 200 million+ more as revenue grows. Pa's latest was 250 mil(im Not sure what their first proposal had?) so the difference is minimal between the two parties. Thus why I havent heard anything about RS in a while from either side.

is it enough though?(I'm actually curious) I mean profits aren't THAT high in order to have huge RS, players cut will help offset that though.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 02:28 AM
  #609
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm willing to wait and see how they tweak revenue sharing before getting too concerned.

IMO, the PA hit the nail squarely on the head with their first proposal that dealt primarily with revenue sharing as a vehicle for balancing the league's finances. Not that salaries didn't also need adjustment, but it's equally on the owners to build 30 healthy franchises. If they can take this opportunity to plug some leaks and stabilize some of the so-called problem franchises, that will be a major step forward and could signal a tidal shift in the league's prosperity. Some of these other little concessions might help pacify the teams that would be paying the most into such a system, by giving them a slight competitive advantage in the league they're helping to build. Long term, that advantage will dissipate and the need for RS will evaporate as weaker teams grow stronger. It could fix a lot of large-scale problems.

If they don't screw it up.
My problem with the rev share proposals is that both sides are short of the 12-15% likely needed under the current system. The other way to fix the linked system is to fix the ranging. A wider gap in the range would allow the lesser teams to get by.

I'll pop this in here as I alluded to earlier (not for you but for all). They could go to a system giving owners a fixed profit (5-7%) leaguewide with heavy penalties for folding (not relocating) franchises. This system would include audits/deductions on non-player expenses so ownership could not shift money away from player payroll. The owners decide their own sharing mechanism in this scenario where they are penalized if a team falls too far below the waterline. A second system would have all owners pay in 57% (or whatever percentage it is) of revenues to a league pot from which all players are paid. Each team would write contracts for a percentage of their team pool of player payroll money rather than specific dollar amounts. It obviates rev sharing except for extreme conditions. KevFu has a milder solution based on median for a third system. I am just putting these out there to show that there are workable alternatives.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 03:54 AM
  #610
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
Current proposal from the NHL is 200 million+ more as revenue grows. Pa's latest was 250 mil(im Not sure what their first proposal had?) so the difference is minimal between the two parties. Thus why I havent heard anything about RS in a while from either side.

is it enough though?(I'm actually curious) I mean profits aren't THAT high in order to have huge RS, players cut will help offset that though.
I think once the league finally sews up the Phoenix situation, gets the Islanders into Brooklyn, and sees Columbus to get its **** together, we will have a bit rosier of a RS situation. For the most part teams aren't losing a completely crazy amount of money -- there are just too many teams with moderate losses. The short-term need is to plug the worst holes and try to move the needle a bit for the rest of the red-ink teams.

I don't think it's a huge problem for an NHL team to post a $2m annual loss. If organizations were honest, a $2m loss is still a huge payday for a lot of people. Nobody is going to give up on a $200m business because they lost $2m. It's the cluster who are all losing around $6-8m a year who need some relief (and that includes the Wild, Caps and Sharks, teams which have done things right for the most part). With a reduction in player costs and a retooled RS system, maybe they cut their losses to $4m or $2m, at which point they can pretty much call it even as far as anyone in the boardroom really cares. When you're that close, you can spend money to build better revenue streams and come out ahead in the end.

What I'm not quite sure about -- exactly how much will the teams save in salary per year, and how much RS will be required to get these teams back into the safety zone?

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 05:36 AM
  #611
Shrimper
WinItFor#58
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 62,148
vCash: 50
Today will either be great or terrible.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 05:53 AM
  #612
Jonas1235
Registered User
 
Jonas1235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I think once the league finally sews up the Phoenix situation, gets the Islanders into Brooklyn, and sees Columbus to get its **** together, we will have a bit rosier of a RS situation. For the most part teams aren't losing a completely crazy amount of money -- there are just too many teams with moderate losses. The short-term need is to plug the worst holes and try to move the needle a bit for the rest of the red-ink teams.

I don't think it's a huge problem for an NHL team to post a $2m annual loss. If organizations were honest, a $2m loss is still a huge payday for a lot of people. Nobody is going to give up on a $200m business because they lost $2m. It's the cluster who are all losing around $6-8m a year who need some relief (and that includes the Wild, Caps and Sharks, teams which have done things right for the most part). With a reduction in player costs and a retooled RS system, maybe they cut their losses to $4m or $2m, at which point they can pretty much call it even as far as anyone in the boardroom really cares. When you're that close, you can spend money to build better revenue streams and come out ahead in the end.

What I'm not quite sure about -- exactly how much will the teams save in salary per year, and how much RS will be required to get these teams back into the safety zone?
Have to remember that some teams don't mind posting a loss in the hrr because they own their arena or get revenue from other places to make up for it. They want the Cup and they'll go after it. See San Jose, buffalo, minnesota(now) and others.

Jonas1235 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 05:59 AM
  #613
Nanuk23
Registered User
 
Nanuk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Anyone else find it somewhat odd they would wait till 3 PM to start these meetings ?

Nanuk23 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:14 AM
  #614
Raylaw21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burtonboy View Post
Anyone else find it somewhat odd they would wait till 3 PM to start these meetings ?
Probally more for travel issues than anything.

Raylaw21 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:27 AM
  #615
Shrimper
WinItFor#58
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 62,148
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burtonboy View Post
Anyone else find it somewhat odd they would wait till 3 PM to start these meetings ?
Gives them time to travel and if some of them need to vote they can do it in the morning.

May be having meetings with other members of their associations (I.e NHLPA and NHL in house meetings) before hand as well.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:29 AM
  #616
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bogor, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,588
vCash: 500
Not gonna lie, I'm not feeling as confident as some others on these boards...

BonkTastic is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:30 AM
  #617
Shrimper
WinItFor#58
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 62,148
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Not gonna lie, I'm not feeling as confident as some others on these boards...
Same. That could change though depending on what the outcome of today's meeting are.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:30 AM
  #618
Mike Jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Note View Post
Right I want to be be so angry with rival teams posters I can't think straight. I miss old times
It's best to hold off on "The I Love You Man"s until we have a deal in our cold ... er, living hands.

Mike Jones is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:37 AM
  #619
Nanuk23
Registered User
 
Nanuk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Gives them time to travel and if some of them need to vote they can do it in the morning.

May be having meetings with other members of their associations (I.e NHLPA and NHL in house meetings) before hand as well.

Could be Shrimper . You would think most of those house keeping items would have been done last night. Most of these guys live outside NY so I would think they vote in advanced polls. Anyway its no big deal.I just found it a bit odd . As long as they meet what time is not an issue

Nanuk23 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:42 AM
  #620
KingBogo
Admitted Homer
 
KingBogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 4,117
vCash: 1126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Gives them time to travel and if some of them need to vote they can do it in the morning.

May be having meetings with other members of their associations (I.e NHLPA and NHL in house meetings) before hand as well.
I think you are right. I can't imagine either side wants to go into today's meeting without a face to face in house meeting to make sure everyone is on side and strategy is honed.

KingBogo is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:42 AM
  #621
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,346
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonas1235 View Post
Have to remember that some teams don't mind posting a loss in the hrr because they own their arena or get revenue from other places to make up for it. They want the Cup and they'll go after it. See San Jose, buffalo, minnesota(now) and others.
Absolutely. I don't think there are many owners actually losing money
at the end of the day. They probably aren't making much, but they aren't generally dumb enough to buy a total money sink.

Still, franchises need to be profitable for the league to thrive. The conditions that allow owners to wash away losses aren't permanent, and can't be relied upon indefinitely. We learned that lesson with Atlanta.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:48 AM
  #622
Nanuk23
Registered User
 
Nanuk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
SPEC ON LOCKOUT: UNCOVERING THE HAWKS & DOVES


http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...ining_lockout/

Nanuk23 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 06:58 AM
  #623
The Last Baron*
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,149
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
Not gonna lie, I'm not feeling as confident as some others on these boards...
Same.

Hell, I still don't think we have a resolution until May 2013.

The Last Baron* is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 07:13 AM
  #624
Nanuk23
Registered User
 
Nanuk23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHL doesn't plan to do any media availability today but NHLPA plans to have media avail... Actual meeting in undisclosed location in NY

Nanuk23 is offline  
Old
11-06-2012, 07:17 AM
  #625
UsernameWasTaken
HFBoards Sponsor
 
UsernameWasTaken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,261
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
Today will either be great or terrible.
we haven't had a great day yet - so, playing the odds, i'm going with "terrible".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burtonboy View Post
Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
NHL doesn't plan to do any media availability today but NHLPA plans to have media avail... Actual meeting in undisclosed location in NY
Too, bad. It's more entertaining when Don and Gary have dueling pressers.


Last edited by UsernameWasTaken: 11-06-2012 at 07:47 AM.
UsernameWasTaken is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:01 AM.

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.