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.

Bob McKenzie: NHL doesn't need max contract length

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 03:15 PM
  #76
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
-Conceded more money into revenue sharing (at the demand of the PA)


-Conceded more money put towards players in regards to upgrade in comfort, travel, lodging, secondary medical opinions, extra trainers on the road (at the demand of the PA)
The players already receive this.

-there is supposedly a list of 17 issues that the PA brought to the table regarding contracting issues and supposedly 14 of those issues have been agreed upon or made movement by the league towards the players



Maybe you should define what ZERO means because unless you're reinventing math, don't see how that adds to ZERO.
Zero means zero. All the league has done is said these are the parameters. They all involve us taking your money, and all discussions are based on how much. The league offering a 24% reduction, then a 12% and then a 8% and so on and so forth is not a concession.

A meaningful concession would be UFA eligibility or less restrictions on contract length ect, not we're willing to take slightly less of your contracts we signed a few months earlier.

habsfanatics is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 03:23 PM
  #77
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
Zero means zero. All the league has done is said these are the parameters. They all involve us taking your money, and all discussions are based on how much. The league offering a 24% reduction, then a 12% and then a 8% and so on and so forth is not a concession.

A meaningful concession would be UFA eligibility or less restrictions on contract length ect, not we're willing to take slightly less of your contracts we signed a few months earlier.
So when the owners are asking the players for something they don't have currently, and the players agree, it is a concession the players are making.

When the players ask the owners for something they don't currently have, and the owners agree, it is not a concession that the owners are making. It is zero concession.

So this is your logic? Well then carry on with your new world logic.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 05:52 PM
  #78
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,852
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
So when the owners are asking the players for something they don't have currently, and the players agree, it is a concession the players are making.

When the players ask the owners for something they don't currently have, and the owners agree, it is not a concession that the owners are making. It is zero concession.

So this is your logic? Well then carry on with your new world logic.
That pretty much sums it up.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 07:47 PM
  #79
Jackie Treehorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Aruba
Posts: 2,052
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barrie22 View Post
we would be still where we are right now, fehr every time the nhl goes for the goal line with a concession the players wants, he moves the posts to something else.
I keep hearing this type of argument against Fehr, but I'm not sure what it means. When have the players got anything and then changed what they wanted. Frankly, I think mackenzie sums it up perfectly, the whole need for 50/50 was to get costs down, and now the owners also need the players to giver up virtually every contract right they have, somebody isn't playing fair and it's not don fehr

Jackie Treehorn is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:14 PM
  #80
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,012
vCash: 500
Is there not some organization out there that can make a plan for these doofuses that has been tested and works?

They can take 0.01%-0.1% for their trouble.

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 08:22 PM
  #81
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
They can take 0.01%-0.1% for their trouble.
An "Arbitrator"? Good Luck...

Killion is online now  
Old
11-12-2012, 09:27 PM
  #82
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
An "Arbitrator"? Good Luck...
Yeah, I only see an arbitrator being in that position to do such a thing and I think hell would freeze over before either side agrees to that.

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:15 PM
  #83
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 67
I like the long term contracts. It's a taste of greed's medicine.

How is a GM doing his franchise a favour by signing a lifetime player? It hurts the fans and the franchise everytime and you'd have to be a fool to think otherwise.

Imagine watching a team who you'll know will have the exact same team for the next 10 years (minus a trade)? Now imagine that team sucked.... There goes that audience pretty quick. Nobody wants to watch a dumb team who's stuck with an expensive player for a lifetime.

Is it justified by a competitive edge? Sure, in the same way robbing a bank is justified as getting ahead in life. The consequences are blatant and those who take the risk deserve to reap them.

MarkGio is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:22 PM
  #84
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
So when the owners are asking the players for something they don't have currently, and the players agree, it is a concession the players are making.

When the players ask the owners for something they don't currently have, and the owners agree, it is not a concession that the owners are making. It is zero concession.

So this is your logic? Well then carry on with your new world logic.
That's an oversimplification. When you say "owners", do you mean all of them?

So when I say the owners had a record year in revenue after being in operation for nearly a century -- during a global financial crisis, mind you -- I mean all of the owners, right?

So the players aren't asking for something the owner's don't currently have, since they have money to spend after record year of revenue.

It doesn't seem to me like the players aren't looking to take from ALL of the owners.


Last edited by MarkGio: 11-12-2012 at 10:34 PM.
MarkGio is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:32 PM
  #85
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,748
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbeck5 View Post
Disagree with the first part. Players should accept what the owners do to remain successful. If they don't like it then they can "get out" no one is forcing them to play in the NHL.

I agree with the second part. i would prefer the 5% rule and you can sign a contract for as long as you want. That being said, the cap hit should remain after the player retires or gets sent down.
I'm pretty sure the GMs and owners are forcing them. Owners are spending crazy amounts in salaries to follow and scout these kids. They're scouted at the age of 15.

I remember when Taylor Hall and Tyler Seguin were considered for the Oilers picks, Daryl Katz had them flown in to Edmonton to be interviewed in his mansion.

Consider the presentations owners put on and lengths they go to sign players. How many teams were flying Justin Shultz around to tout him? And Shultz never played a single game!!

These players don't even have to perform a few miracles to be worshiped. I'm pretty sure they can find somewhere else to play.

MarkGio is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:43 PM
  #86
HockeyCrazed101
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
That's an oversimplification. When you say "owners", do you mean all of them?

So when I say the owners had a record year in revenue after being in operation for nearly a century -- during a global financial crisis, mind you -- I mean all of the owners, right?

So the players aren't asking for something the owner's don't currently have, since they have money to spend after record year of revenue.

It doesn't seem to me like the players aren't looking to take from ALL of the owners.
I'm assuming you're referring to revenue sharing as only a select number of owners would contribute to that. However, players have also requested that teams upgrade in a number of areas such as comfort, travel, lodging, secondary medical opinions, etc. These are demands that were agreed upon by the league and EACH team will incur those service costs for their own set of players. Can you think of a scenario where that wouldn't apply to every owner in the league?

HockeyCrazed101 is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:49 PM
  #87
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Evergreen Dr
Posts: 27,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I'm assuming you're referring to revenue sharing as only a select number of owners would contribute to that. However, players have also requested that teams upgrade in a number of areas such as comfort, travel, lodging, secondary medical opinions, etc. These are demands that were agreed upon by the league and EACH team will incur those service costs for their own set of players. Can you think of a scenario where that wouldn't apply to every owner in the league?

Somehow I think if you asked the players if they'd keep 57% or get these new bennies, they might pick the former.

Not sure why I think that, just a hunch.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 10:56 PM
  #88
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
The article is arguing that the NHL should have made this step earlier. Now that we can't do a full 82 game season, the NHL may have shot itself in the foot.
Daly stated that they were completely open to negotiating the make whole provision at that time. It is also on Fehr and the players that they didn't explore the option of the owners paying for make whole at that time. There was nothing stopping them from negotiating for it but as everyone is aware of Don keeps proposing delinked proposals so who really knows if the players would have accepted even if it was on the table.

surixon is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:16 PM
  #89
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Evergreen Dr
Posts: 27,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
Daly stated that they were completely open to negotiating the make whole provision at that time. It is also on Fehr and the players that they didn't explore the option of the owners paying for make whole at that time. There was nothing stopping them from negotiating for it but as everyone is aware of Don keeps proposing delinked proposals so who really knows if the players would have accepted even if it was on the table.

The one thing that hasn't changed is that at the time Bettman had said there was wiggle room on the Make Partial provision, but the other items had to be accepted. That seems to be a continuing theme. One can only hope that both sides will only dig on the things truly necessary to help them operate successfully. Not all of these things are of equal value.

Fugu is offline  
Old
11-12-2012, 11:49 PM
  #90
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,495
vCash: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackie Treehorn View Post
I keep hearing this type of argument against Fehr, but I'm not sure what it means. When have the players got anything and then changed what they wanted. Frankly, I think mackenzie sums it up perfectly, the whole need for 50/50 was to get costs down, and now the owners also need the players to giver up virtually every contract right they have, somebody isn't playing fair and it's not don fehr
The fact that fehr hasnt agreed on one aspect of a linked 50-50, that does or doesnt involve make whole is kind of slowing things down. Once the split and the make whole provision is agreed on, the owners are going to negotiate on the contract terms.

Question, why should the nhl show there cards completely and go all in before the nhlpa even agrees they are going to go in with you?

MOD

The nhl has already showed the end game of the split of hrr, 50-50 with the owners paying back the money they have already lost for this season.

Now it is time for fehr to agree, and start the negotiations on the other aspects of the cba.


Last edited by Fugu: 11-12-2012 at 11:53 PM. Reason: he's not the topic of the thread
Barrie22 is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:11 AM
  #91
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Bob McKenzie, in his latest article on TSN.ca, states that, with the salary cap + a 50-50 split of HRR, the league doesn't need max contract lengths of 5 years. He says the players, however, should accept a max 5 percent variance in contracts to prevent cap circumvention.

He makes an additional point that the league should have made their offer of covering the Make Whole back in October when there was still a chance of an 82 game season. Their concession of covering $149M in the first year would have made up the difference if we're talking revenues based on this full season projection.

He explains it very well here:



I wonder where we'd be if the NHL didn't decide to just play in the park until November and seriously got down to it with their first offer, or October at the very least.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409277
Many different ways to skin a cat.

If the main goal after the 50/50 and make whole are settled is to ensure no further cap circumvention contracts. Ie. Kovachuk, Hossa, Luongo, Zetterberg, Weber, Parise, Suter, Crosby, etc. down the line.

If the salary paid to the player can only vary by 5% each season from the cap hit, that works just fine. Or even, make it so that cap hit and salary are the same. So, wouldn't really matter if you signed for 3 years or 13 years, the team is still going to bear basically all of the cap hit when the player plays.

With the front loaded deals, take Luongo, who in the final 3 years makes a combined $3.6 million in salary with a $5.33 cap hit so $16 million in total cap hit for 3 years, if he retires before playing those 3 years, there's $9.4 million of real money that is never accounted for against the salary cap.

Just pick a method that is fair and move on.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 12:35 AM
  #92
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbeck5 View Post
They are succesfull in their other business ventures because their other business ventures don't have a union demanding millions and wanting over 50% of Revenue. They aren't successful from their NHL teams.
That's not even close to being correct. First off: HRR does not include all the revenue that it could (and should, imo). Secondly, the union is asking for a gradual decline to 50% and the honouring of current contracts: They're not demanding millions; they're asking for the money they've earned in the contracts they've signed to date.

DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:59 AM
  #93
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
That's not even close to being correct. First off: HRR does not include all the revenue that it could (and should, imo). Secondly, the union is asking for a gradual decline to 50% and the honouring of current contracts: They're not demanding millions; they're asking for the money they've earned in the contracts they've signed to date.
No it shouldn't. Examples have been given, but I will repeat. As an example, you can buy a hot dog for $5 at the arena. Currently, it costs $3 to put that hot dog into the customer's hands. If the players get $2.85 for that hot dog, as an owner I am not going to lose $.85 for every hot dog. The customer can buy it outside of the arena. Than as a player I don't even get a bite of that hot dog. What they have now is a system which awards the players $1.14 of the $2 of profit in the hot dog; both sides benefit.

Second example, how do I feel as a non-hockey fan taxpaying citizen of Nashville or Phoenix knowing that I spent tax money on all the players in the league when I was just trying to save the economic benefit of a team in my city.

And for your benefit, I do think that some of the deductions that they are taking for pre-season should be in the HRR pot. It is not black and white and certainly not as one-sided as you continually harp upon. Please stop biting that hot dog.


Last edited by SJeasy: 11-13-2012 at 02:19 AM.
SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:36 AM
  #94
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post

And for your benefit, I do think that some of the deductions that they are taking for pre-season should be in the HRR pot. It is not black and white and certainly not as one-sided as you continually harp upon. Please stop biting that hot dog.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Preseason income is not currently included in HRR? Also playoffs are not included in HRR?

Wouldn't it be easier if everything were included in HRR?

It reminds me of looking at a new model home. Granite is not included that's an upgrade. Hardwood is not included that's upgrade. Stainless appliances are not included but there is a builders allowance. You may have to add $ if you want the stainless.


Last edited by Dream Big: 11-13-2012 at 02:43 AM.
Dream Big is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:46 AM
  #95
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
Many different ways to skin a cat.

If the main goal after the 50/50 and make whole are settled is to ensure no further cap circumvention contracts. Ie. Kovachuk, Hossa, Luongo, Zetterberg, Weber, Parise, Suter, Crosby, etc. down the line.

If the salary paid to the player can only vary by 5% each season from the cap hit, that works just fine. Or even, make it so that cap hit and salary are the same. So, wouldn't really matter if you signed for 3 years or 13 years, the team is still going to bear basically all of the cap hit when the player plays.

With the front loaded deals, take Luongo, who in the final 3 years makes a combined $3.6 million in salary with a $5.33 cap hit so $16 million in total cap hit for 3 years, if he retires before playing those 3 years, there's $9.4 million of real money that is never accounted for against the salary cap.

Just pick a method that is fair and move on.
Surely the 5% variation from year to year isn't what is holding up an agreement?

Dream Big is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:49 AM
  #96
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 11,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Big View Post
Am I understanding this correctly?
Preseason income is not currently included in HRR? Also playoffs are not included in HRR?

Wouldn't it be easier if everything were included in HRR?
Not exactly. Hot dogs were the fun example of why not. Basically things which cost more than 57% of their final price to put in front of the consumer (us). Owners would be foolish to include revenues that were guaranteed to lose them money; complete disincentive to chase those revenues. Part of pre-season is in HRR, but there are a boatload of deductions for preseason where I would desperately care to see the reasoning. Playoffs are included, but players are paid a pittance for the playoffs ($6.5mil divvied up across all playoff players). Essentially 57% (or whatever %) of playoff revenue is divvied up among players on all teams in addition to $6.5mil to players on playoff teams.

I am speaking from the perspective of someone who would want only reg season rev % for all players and all playoff rev % to go to only players in the playoffs. If you asked me for an ideal system, I would go directly to a direct pay for performance system with base salaries for participation and some fixed seniority increments. I literally want the players to directly compete for their pay.

SJeasy is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 09:10 AM
  #97
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 10,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Big View Post
Am I understanding this correctly?
Preseason income is not currently included in HRR? Also playoffs are not included in HRR?

Wouldn't it be easier if everything were included in HRR?
Pre-season and playoff income are both included in HRR.

mouser is online now  
Old
11-13-2012, 03:58 PM
  #98
kdb209
Global Moderator
 
kdb209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Pre-season and playoff income are both included in HRR.
However, the League may deduct Direct Costs of pre-season (and special/international) games - up to a 15% limit - from HRR.

kdb209 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 06:13 PM
  #99
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
No it shouldn't. Examples have been given, but I will repeat. As an example, you can buy a hot dog for $5 at the arena. Currently, it costs $3 to put that hot dog into the customer's hands. If the players get $2.85 for that hot dog, as an owner I am not going to lose $.85 for every hot dog. The customer can buy it outside of the arena. Than as a player I don't even get a bite of that hot dog. What they have now is a system which awards the players $1.14 of the $2 of profit in the hot dog; both sides benefit.
You mean both sides benefit from the players taking 57%? Quick: Someone call Bettman and the owners!


Last edited by DyerMaker66: 11-14-2012 at 01:39 AM.
DyerMaker66 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 04:07 AM
  #100
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Bob McKenzie, in his latest article on TSN.ca, states that, with the salary cap + a 50-50 split of HRR, the league doesn't need max contract lengths of 5 years. He says the players, however, should accept a max 5 percent variance in contracts to prevent cap circumvention.

He makes an additional point that the league should have made their offer of covering the Make Whole back in October when there was still a chance of an 82 game season. Their concession of covering $149M in the first year would have made up the difference if we're talking revenues based on this full season projection.

He explains it very well here:



I wonder where we'd be if the NHL didn't decide to just play in the park until November and seriously got down to it with their first offer, or October at the very least.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409277
I wonder whete we'd be if the NHLPA sat down with the league a year ago... When the NHL said it was ready to talk.

But seriously, since the NHL is up to a point where the are past the give and take, and that the NHLPA is still trying to stand ground... We would probably be in the same position no matter when they started talking.

NORiculous 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 02:23 PM.

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.