Can someone explain revenue sharing to me please and why it affects the PA?
It affects the growth of salaries. If you have 5-8 teams making way more money then they can spend, and some of that money is given to poor teams. Then the poor teams can spend the money thus increasing salaries for all players
He's tweet feed doesn't include that tweet at all. You sure that's the right Bob-o?
BTW, does anyone know when this meeting started and if it's over? If they are in disagreement and are still duking it out for a long time, I think that's a positive. And if it's so secretive that the media doesn't know when they started today, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.
Probably trying to divide the owners which, at this point, is a d*ck tactic.
I don't think that's the case at all, I think it has to do with escrow:
Quote:
To ensure the correct revenue split, a percentage of player salaries could be placed in escrow. When total NHL revenues are determined at the end of the season, the escrow account is divided among players and owners to ensure that the target has been met.
So essentially the players want the rich teams to help out the poor teams to essentially balance revenues so they will have to pay out less in escrow.
I'm not sure, I could be completely wrong about that, but that's how I understand it.
It affects the growth of salaries. If you have 5-8 teams making way more money then they can spend, and some of that money is given to poor teams. Then the poor teams can spend the money thus increasing salaries for all players
He's tweet feed doesn't include that tweet at all. You sure that's the right Bob-o?
BTW, does anyone know when this meeting started and if it's over? If they are in disagreement and are still duking it out for a long time, I think that's a positive. And if it's so secretive that the media doesn't know when they started today, I'm not sure if that's a good thing.
I think I saw on Twitter that they were going to meet at 1PM EST. Could be wrong though.
To me, it sounds like they're trying to further divide the rich and poor teams, which like I said, is a d*ck move.
The 'make whole' provision coming out of the player's share is meant to divide the players. Both sides are using the divide and conquer strategy.
Lower paid players have less salary to be made whole, while top paid players would lose a lot more. (for example, 10% of $1M is 100K, 10% of $5M is 500K) Coming out of the players share means less HRR to be put towards determining the new cap ceiling for the next season. That affects higher paid players more, since a lower cap means less options and more downward pressure on new contracts.
Fehr addressing the media in 10 minutes. This is not going to be good.
Per Bob and LeBrun, the meeting is over but both sides will meet again tomorrow. Also sounds like the NHL is having an internal meeting at the moment - possibly reviewing components of PA proposals?
Continued meetings is definitely a positive sign...I think.
Much better news than I expected. The league responded to the PA's proposals today and obviously found something they were willing to talk about internally. Continued meetings is definitely good news.
The 'make whole' provision coming out of the player's share is meant to divide the players. Both sides are using the divide and conquer strategy.
Lower paid players have less salary to be made whole, while top paid players would lose a lot more. (for example, 10% of $1M is 100K, 10% of $5M is 500K) Coming out of the players share means less HRR to be put towards determining the new cap ceiling for the next season. That affects higher paid players more, since a lower cap means less options and more downward pressure on new contracts.
Who does the "make whole" provision divide? Doesn't this apply to virtually all of the players? They're all under contract as we speak. Maybe it divides the short-term contract players and the long-term contract players, but I can't see the provision being used as a legitimate tactic against the NHLPA.
Per Bob and LeBrun, the meeting is over but both sides will meet again tomorrow. Also sounds like the NHL is having an internal meeting at the moment - possibly reviewing components of PA proposals?
Continued meetings is definitely a positive sign...I think.
It is a good thing. No walkouts, and that the proposals from the NHLPA aren't bad enough for the NHL to storm off but to negotiate/argue/bicker over is a good starting point. The fact that they are going to keep meeting tomorrow is good as well.
Also, this next part is even more reading into things, but the league having an internal meeting means that they actually have something that they can bring to discuss about/work off, instead of following their 'toss this crap out' script that they've been working off.
Gary Bettman just said there's "still a lot of work to do.", which also means that some work has been done, instead of having 'nothing'.
So all in all, expected and not a bad sign. Will need to hear more, but this is not bad by any stretch.
RT @tpanotchcsn: Lindros says all todays players want is to honour existing contracts
That can't be that hard could it? Surely the NHL's owners were negotiating in good faith. The whole squabble about this is one of the many reasons I am with the players.
@DougMaclean: The Board of Governors were sent a memo last nite from bettman saying if no traction today ,talks could breakdown. Obviously traction today.
Who does the "make whole" provision divide? Doesn't this apply to virtually all of the players? They're all under contract as we speak. Maybe it divides the short-term contract players and the long-term contract players, but I can't see the provision being used as a legitimate tactic against the NHLPA.
If it's coming out of the player's future share of HRR, it divides the higher paid players from the lower paid players. Players earning close to league minimum up to $2M or so aren't going to care as much what the cap is, they are going to have spots on the NHL club. A lower cap might even benefit them, as it makes them more attractive options than higher paid players for teams that are close to the cap ceiling. If an upper tier player is going for a new contract, a lower cap results in less options to earn what he thinks he's worth. He may have to take less in a new contract to fit under a cap. Current players being made whole are lowering cap ceilings in future seasons.
...
I think the breaking point is that the PA expects growth over the next 5 years, while NHL thinks it will plateau at $3.3 billion. It's going to go down if you keep not playing.
I'm not so sure that the PA believes that the growth will continue. If they did, they'd be happy to keep linkage. If you thought that growth would slow, proposing de-linkage makes a lot of sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem
...
Quote:
RT @tpanotchcsn: Lindros says all todays players want is to honour existing contracts
That can't be that hard could it? Surely the NHL's owners were negotiating in good faith. The whole squabble about this is one of the many reasons I am with the players.
I think that the repeated "honour our contracts" propaganda is code for players wanting escrow and linkage to be scrapped. In the linked system, even at 57%, the players never received 100% of their contracts with the exception of the first year of the CBA. Apparently this was a constant complaint amongst players.
Despite the grousing, it was actually their own PA that was largely to blame for players not receiving the whole of their salaries. The PA elected time and time again to invoke the escalator clause, which artificially inflated the cap and resulted in players receiving less than 100% of their contracts. Perhaps angering its own constituents was intentional: putting them in the mood to fight to scrap escrow and linkage would be a logical first step this time if the PA wanted to go after the cap next time around.
That may be a bit far fetched, but depending on one's interpretation, "honouring contracts" could result in players receiving more in salary than they would have under the previous CBA. That said, here's my take on the two sides' positions:
NHL: We need to make a shared sacrifice.
(Translation: We'd like you to get less money so we can make more.)
Players: We just want you to honour our contracts.
(Translation: Well, we'd actually like to make more money than before.)
It affects the growth of salaries. If you have 5-8 teams making way more money then they can spend, and some of that money is given to poor teams. Then the poor teams can spend the money thus increasing salaries for all players
Growth of salaries is tied to one thing and one thing only and that's leaguewide revenues. Poorer teams having more money from revenue sharing won't generate a single extra dollar for the players. In fact, it'd just lead to bigger escrow clawbacks as more teams would likely spend at or above the midpoint. It would, however, take away one of the NHL's biggest arguments that they're doing this because the poorer teams are losing money.
