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.
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.)
There's a vast difference between losing money to escrow from lower than expected revenues or a couple of front loaded deals and losing money because the players lose 12-13% of their share immediately.
When players talk about contracts being honored, they don't expect the dollar value to be paid in full, they just don't want a rollback which is exactly what would happen if the split dropped to 50/50 immediately.
Even the NHL is amenable to this as their offer included a guarantee on existing deals. Now it's just a matter of who pays what share of that guarantee.
There's a vast difference between losing money to escrow from lower than expected revenues or a couple of front loaded deals and losing money because the players lose 12-13% of their share immediately.
Distinct from both of those is the systemic loss of money through escrow because the PA elects to escalate the cap beyond revenue projections. This helped boost the value of new contracts but came at the expense of players with existing deals. I was simply pointing out that players apparently hated not getting the whole value of their contracts under the previous CBA; it has been a long-standing complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
When players talk about contracts being honored, they don't expect the dollar value to be paid in full, they just don't want a rollback which is exactly what would happen if the split dropped to 50/50 immediately.
...
The evidence indicates otherwise. Each of the players' proposals included their share being de-linked, escrow being scrapped, and/or contracts being paid out at their full nominal value.
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.
yep. Less teams losing money = higher HRR for the players.
There's a vast difference between losing money to escrow from lower than expected revenues or a couple of front loaded deals and losing money because the players lose 12-13% of their share immediately.
When players talk about contracts being honored, they don't expect the dollar value to be paid in full, they just don't want a rollback which is exactly what would happen if the split dropped to 50/50 immediately.
Even the NHL is amenable to this as their offer included a guarantee on existing deals. Now it's just a matter of who pays what share of that guarantee.
I've changed my mind on escrow, I think it should be done away with. We have 6 years of cap data and we know the cap works well enough at controlling HRR splits that the little it is out each year isn't game breaking IMHO.
I'd switch to the following system
Ceiling is X% HRR + $Y (same as now just insert X and Y, ie last years ceiling was 57% HRR + $8m)
Floor is 60% of ceiling (was X HRR - $8m)
Y get tweaked up or down between years based on a HRR range of 49-51 to ensure you maintain roughly 50%.
Now the special bit, because there is no escrow you adjust Y +/- from year to year depending on whether the players were under or over paid. Ie players got <49% then Y gets in increased, if > than 51 then Y gets decreased.
No escrow so every players gets 100% of their contract. NHL gets 50% and a workable cap based HRR split.
Larry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Told that PA proposed that players get last year's share plus 5 pct this yr regardless of schedule length/actual revenue...
Quote:
Larry Brooks @NYP_Brooksie
Last year's share was 1.883B...plus 5 pct would be $1.977B...would likely eat 65-67 pct of revenue in 66-68 game season.
A slightly more optimistic version from my reddit:
I was initially optimistic about this. Not anymore. We'll be extremely lucky to see any ice at all this year. The small person in me that is extremely hopeful says Fehr is pulling this to see what else he can get from the owners though. Give them 10 or 12 days to see if how far they will snap and if not, he'll take what he's already gotten.
In any matter, they are miles apart still.
A slightly more optimistic version from my reddit:
I was initially optimistic about this. Not anymore. We'll be extremely lucky to see any ice at all this year. The small person in me that is extremely hopeful says Fehr is pulling this to see what else he can get from the owners though. Give them 10 or 12 days to see if how far they will snap and if not, he'll take what he's already gotten.
In any matter, they are miles apart still.
If Fehr is still gambling, then this is a sad state of affairs. I thought the posturing was over.
I don't buy that they want full seasons pay, it's probably some sort of misinterpretation of them wanting 100% pay prorated for number of games ( ie no escrow).
I know this is a lot to ask, but could someone post a timeline of the lockout?
Or a summary?
I am a bit lost myself, after today's leaked memo and all the Fehr bashing afterwards.
A columnist thinks it is character assassination, and I personally thought he is doing what he should be doing: fighting for player's rights.
Why are there so much hate for Fehr?
Am I missing something?
Everybody involved is doing their job. Its just frustrating that doing their job means ****ing us until whatever magical date hits.
Friedman had an interesting take on this evenings events on CBC. The short of it: he believes the owners that want to play are panicking at losing more of the season and Fehr sensed that. He played hardball today to put the pressure on them. They didn't like that, and took a run at him in turn, using the media to suggest he wasn't being honest with the players. Trying to divide and conquer.
As we know, players are present and involved and their response to those allegations was "Huh?'
