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.

Mark Recchi's advice to players is to sign CBA now

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 11:59 AM
  #401
Gm0ney
Registered User
 
Gm0ney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,242
vCash: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by realroadrage View Post
1) Players agreed to play under current CBA while negotiating new one
2) Current CBA, by all accounts, represented a total win for owners when negotiated and signed

How anyone can blame the players when there is no hockey is beyond me.
1) Why don't players ever continue to play under the terms of their expired contracts while they negotiate new ones? Parise could've stayed with the Devils, making a tidy $6 million while they came up with a new deal.

2) The 50-50 offer by the owners, assuming flat-to-positive growth in HRR, would mean a raise for players over the term of the next CBA. The more growth, the bigger the raise (e.g. 5% growth each year for the next 6 would be $1.8 billion more for players compared to the last 6 years). That's not enough?

How can anyone blame the owners?

Gm0ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:35 PM
  #402
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by realroadrage View Post
1) Players agreed to play under current CBA while negotiating new one
2) Current CBA, by all accounts, represented a total win for owners when negotiated and signed

How anyone can blame the players when there is no hockey is beyond me.
The previous CBA was a huge win for the players.

The only reason the players wanted to play under the old one was so they could get another free year at their overpriced salary, or to get leverage of a strike mid-season.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:49 PM
  #403
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 4,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
The previous CBA was a huge win for the players.

The only reason the players wanted to play under the old one was so they could get another free year at their overpriced salary, or to get leverage of a strike mid-season.
Now you're thinking like a Fehr...

Bandit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:08 PM
  #404
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 21,009
vCash: 500
It amuses me how BOTH the owners and players are claiming they 'lost' the last CBA. Clearly someone's lying and since the players were getting a 57-43 share and huge lockout-protected signing bonuses in FA I'd say the players are the ones lying.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:36 PM
  #405
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,438
vCash: 500
Just speculation on my behalf but a player who's retired might find it more advantageous to take the owner's side in this debate if he's looking to get hired by the NHL or an NHL team.

Someone like Lindros who's looking for work with the PA would obviously make an argument for the PA.

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:40 PM
  #406
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
It amuses me how BOTH the owners and players are claiming they 'lost' the last CBA. Clearly someone's lying and since the players were getting a 57-43 share and huge lockout-protected signing bonuses in FA I'd say the players are the ones lying.

The players had a CBA rammed down their gullets, and it was 54% of HRR at the beginning. It only increased as revenue increased. The league wanted this certainty. They defined revenue (HRR), got a 24% rollback from contracts already on the books, and the 54% starting point.

So, yes, the league did get everything they wanted.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:46 PM
  #407
Whydidijoin*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The players had a CBA rammed down their gullets, and it was 54% of HRR at the beginning. It only increased as revenue increased. The league wanted this certainty.

So, yes, the league did get everything they wanted.
Yes, the owners got some of what they wanted, and the players benefited.

If only the players learned their lesson the last time.

Whydidijoin* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:11 PM
  #408
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
So, yes, the league did get everything they wanted.
Please provide a link to prove to your claims. Are you an insider who knows exactly what the owners were after in 2004?

Or are you just spinning some PA propaganda?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:16 PM
  #409
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
The owners got what they "wanted" because the PA office badly misread the situation. If you do a poor job at something, should you not be surprised when you lose?

Luckily for them the document that came out of this was a loophole ridden pile of junk.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:28 PM
  #410
Orrthebest
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 704
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The players had a CBA rammed down their gullets, and it was 54% of HRR at the beginning. It only increased as revenue increased. The league wanted this certainty. They defined revenue (HRR), got a 24% rollback from contracts already on the books, and the 54% starting point.

So, yes, the league did get everything they wanted.
So then why are the players worried about the UFA going from 30 to 28? Because if the owners got every thing they wanted as you claim the age for UFA would still be at 30. The truth is the owners won the cap, ECL and accepted the players offer of a 24% rollback but lost on every other issue.

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:26 PM
  #411
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 1,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Just speculation on my behalf but a player who's retired might find it more advantageous to take the owner's side in this debate if he's looking to get hired by the NHL or an NHL team.

Someone like Lindros who's looking for work with the PA would obviously make an argument for the PA.
That is it. Recchi is looking for a job so he's becoming an owner shill. You don't say stuff like that in public. He's obviously a sell-out. At least other former players aren't saying anything.

Recchi lost all credibility with his concussion comments a few years back. Not really the brightest bulb.

ScottyBowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:51 PM
  #412
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Please provide a link to prove to your claims. Are you an insider who knows exactly what the owners were after in 2004?

Or are you just spinning some PA propaganda?

Oh please, you're starting to sound hysterical.

You don't have to be an insider to know what the NHL wanted. Gary told us himself.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:55 PM
  #413
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 17,861
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyBowman View Post
That is it. Recchi is looking for a job so he's becoming an owner shill. You don't say stuff like that in public. He's obviously a sell-out. At least other former players aren't saying anything.

Recchi lost all credibility with his concussion comments a few years back. Not really the brightest bulb.
Not really. Telling your former players that they are being stupid is not selling out, its a reality check.

Hes not the only one to speak out. Mike Modano said he regrets 2004.

Fire Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:57 PM
  #414
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whydidijoin View Post
The previous CBA was a huge win for the players.

The only reason the players wanted to play under the old one was so they could get another free year at their overpriced salary, or to get leverage of a strike mid-season.
And the one prior to that was even better. In fact, with the old old CBA, they would have collectively received even more money than 57% of $3.4 billion, maybe 80% according to the arguments in 2004.

So they took a 24% pay cut. And accepted linkage of 54% of something they had to define as revenues. And a hard cap of $39 MM-- which meant a midpoint of $31 MM and floor of $23 MM!!!

This was a 'concession' of gigantic proportions.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:58 PM
  #415
Fire Sather
Play Like a Pug
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 17,861
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by realroadrage View Post
1) Players agreed to play under current CBA while negotiating new one
2) Current CBA, by all accounts, represented a total win for owners when negotiated and signed
Quote:
Originally Posted by realroadrage View Post

How anyone can blame the players when there is no hockey is beyond me.
Do you see a problem here?

Fire Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 09:58 PM
  #416
Kirk Muller
Registered User
 
Kirk Muller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Brrr -18, Gomez Cold
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Oh please, you're starting to sound hysterical.

You don't have to be an insider to know what the NHL wanted. Gary told us himself.
actually just like the rest of us, you dont know. Bettman has said they got cost certainty which they did, likely not at the levels they wanted ideally but again, none of us know ultimately what they wanted.

Kirk Muller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:20 PM
  #417
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orrthebest View Post
So then why are the players worried about the UFA going from 30 to 28? Because if the owners got every thing they wanted as you claim the age for UFA would still be at 30. The truth is the owners won the cap, ECL and accepted the players offer of a 24% rollback but lost on every other issue.

Excellent question.

And the old UFA age was 31.

I can find posts of mine from seven years ago where I drone on about the UFA age, and well, no one believed me then.

The owners made a small booboo. They believed that the cap would give them the cost-certainty they wanted making the age of free agency not as important on a league-wide level. In that sense, it really isn't and shouldn't be. The expectation was that a linked hard cap would force teams to spend within the desired range, thus making the pool of money somewhat fixed. And again, at the league-wide level, that turned out to be the case.

However, if you try to box humans into.... well, a box, ...... they like finding ways out of it. Enter the capologists. How do I get to keep some players at close to their market value but still 'cheat' the system a little bit? It's not like the league didn't anticipate some of this would happen. They put in some variance controls via the 100% Rule. They got rid of bonuses except for rookies (with their special boxes now as well), 35+ players (and that was boxed in), plus players coming off LTIR on short contracts. Of course, the GMs and their capologists figured out that if you average a contract and you get to use a larger number of years in the denominator.... you get a smaller cap hit. (Duh, right?)

Bettman also wanted to have everything count last time too (Reddens in the AHL), but probably didn't get the backing of the teams on that one. Instead, iirc, they came up with having the recalling team hit for half of the salary if a player is picked off the waiver recall wire.

The teams cheated their own system, not because they wanted to cheat it, but they quickly discovered that when you combine a rapidly rising cap with much lower UFA age, a lot of teams will have to spend more money and that money was quickly shifting to coveted RFA's soon to be off their second contract. They started prepaying for UFA years to entice the players to sign long enough to bridge past their UFA status, or if they were going into their final season as an RFA, they started 'locking them up' longterm. The cap was still rising, so now that money was backfilling into the mid-level guys as well.

If you had had a hard cap (no linkage), this would not have happened.

You could see that the smaller teams were going to have problems. The cap was growing faster than their revenues, but more importantly, that shortened time-frame for hitting it big with their homegrown guys was too short for them to build something sustainable.

The NHL now wants the best of both worlds. In the old pre-cap days, it shouldn't have mattered as much that overage UFAs got the biggest bucks (except to the premier forwards who had to wait years to cash in). What led to that spiral wasn't the lack of a cap, but offer sheets. Offer sheets came about due to two things: a lack of sufficient talent to give everyone stars, and teams who had young stars lowballing them to an extreme. Had they show a little more willingness to ratchet up the compensation for elite guys (heck, do it with bonuses, you know?), the pressure would never have been there to work offer sheets into the system.

You'll note that in spite of making it very difficult to use offer sheets in this most recent go-around, the one that did happen exposed that even a very severe compensation structure wouldn't begin to compensate a team like Nashville for a player of Weber's stature.

I think of Shea Weber as the poster child for this lockout and the NHL's financial and market problems. He's the one player that can be used to illustrate what the two sides are fighting over.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:22 PM
  #418
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
And the one prior to that was even better. In fact, with the old old CBA, they would have collectively received even more money than 57% of $3.4 billion, maybe 80% according to the arguments in 2004.

So they took a 24% pay cut. And accepted linkage of 54% of something they had to define as revenues. And a hard cap of $39 MM-- which meant a midpoint of $31 MM and floor of $23 MM!!!

This was a 'concession' of gigantic proportions.
Those numbers were miscalculated. The nominal cap for this season was $70M.

You also fail to mention that they passed on better offers and that was the "come crawling" offer where they also did get things re: player movement.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:24 PM
  #419
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
actually just like the rest of us, you dont know. Bettman has said they got cost certainty which they did, likely not at the levels they wanted ideally but again, none of us know ultimately what they wanted.

Suit yourself. Many years have passed and many revelations have come from a variety of league/team sources in the aftermath. Rather than me researching it, you may have this point. For myself, I'll continue to believe that I know what the league wanted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
Those numbers were miscalculated. The nominal cap for this season was $70M.

You also fail to mention that they passed on better offers and that was the "come crawling" offer where they also did get things re: player movement.

What numbers are miscalculated? Those are the first year figures after the lockout ended (2005-06 season).

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:26 PM
  #420
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Suit yourself. Many years have passed and many revelations have come from a variety of league/team sources in the aftermath. Rather than me researching it, you may have this point. For myself, I'll continue to believe that I know what the league wanted.




What numbers are miscalculated? Those are the first year figures after the lockout ended (2005-06 season).
The revenue outlook was incorrect both for the first year and also forward looking. It didn't stop moving up until it got to $56M.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:33 PM
  #421
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyincognito View Post
The revenue outlook was incorrect both for the first year and also forward looking. It didn't stop moving up until it got to $56M.
The outlook was $1.9 billion; actual turned out to be $2.1 billion. The next cap ceiling was $44 million? The players share was 54% at the outset.

I'm not sure I understand your point... it didn't stop moving?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:34 PM
  #422
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Oh please, you're starting to sound hysterical.

You don't have to be an insider to know what the NHL wanted. Gary told us himself.
You honestly think that the league wanted to give the players 54-57% of HRR?

Really?

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:35 PM
  #423
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 27,920
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
You honestly think that the league wanted to give the players 54-57% of HRR?

Really?

Yes. They were giving them 74%.

They could have done a fixed cap at $45 MM.

Don't forget what the industry trends with the other leagues were at the time.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:41 PM
  #424
guyincognito
Registered User
 
guyincognito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
The outlook was $1.9 billion; actual turned out to be $2.1 billion. The next cap ceiling was $44 million? The players share was 54% at the outset.

I'm not sure I understand your point... it didn't stop moving?
The system that was created was forward looking a depression, not a boom. That the cap raced up to $56M before stopping tells you how far off the original projection was. Just not in year one, where it missed by 4% or so. I do not think they foresaw the figure doubling during the course of the CBA.

I am not a fan of that document.

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:41 PM
  #425
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 14,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Yes. They were giving them 74%.

They could have done a fixed cap at $45 MM.

Don't forget what the industry trends with the other leagues were at the time.
Giving them that much of HRR was concession for the cap.

It's completely illogical to think that the owners wanted to keep only 43% of HRR.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:14 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.