The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
here is something to ponder. Most North American players here in Europe first part of most of their contracts end over the next few days and nearly all are heading back home for the christmas break and are not due back till the second week in jan 2013
I suspect that is both Christmas related and the belief if a deal is not worked out before mid January at the absolute latest, the league will cancel the season. If something is signed, they save travel time. Not a bad idea actually.
I'm 100% on the owners side, but they should bend a little here. Bend on the contract lenghts and a few things and we have a new CBA done. bada Bing bada Boom.
They are not giving Fehr a drop dead date which is smart. They know he will wait until the last minute to sign something.
I really think the NHL is just waiting it out as well for the drop dead date they have before making one final better offer.
I'm 100% on the owners side, but they should bend a little here. Bend on the contract lenghts and a few things and we have a new CBA done. bada Bing bada Boom.
They are not giving Fehr a drop dead date which is smart. They know he will wait until the last minute to sign something.
I really think the NHL is just waiting it out as well for the drop dead date they have before making one final better offer.
I don't want the owners to give up things just to get a deal done sooner because we're gonna have to live with it for the next 7-10 years. If they're too hasty and sign a bad deal, teams are gonna be in trouble and we're gonna have another lockout once the CBA is up.
I want the owners to get a deal that makes 30+ teams viable and makes it so they don't have to fix anythign with lockouts anymore.
I don't want the owners to give up things just to get a deal done sooner because we're gonna have to live with it for the next 7-10 years. If they're too hasty and sign a bad deal, teams are gonna be in trouble and we're gonna have another lockout once the CBA is up.
I want the owners to get a deal that makes 30+ teams viable and makes it so they don't have to fix anythign with lockouts anymore.
An actual partnership with leage and union next time would be nice too. Instead we have greedy players fighting for every penny and pretending that teams like the Florida panthers are just rolling in dough. Hopefully next time the two sides won't hate each other so much and start seeing the forest for the trees.
I don't want the owners to give up things just to get a deal done sooner because we're gonna have to live with it for the next 7-10 years. If they're too hasty and sign a bad deal, teams are gonna be in trouble and we're gonna have another lockout once the CBA is up.
I want the owners to get a deal that makes 30+ teams viable and makes it so they don't have to fix anythign with lockouts anymore.
1. What is being fought over now will have little effect on club's bottom line. This is about trying to do a beat down on the players.
2. The NHL has won this round, not that it was ever really in doubt. Why not compromise on something like this?
3. You must not like what is going to be agreed on then. The cba the players and owners are going to sign, will help the teams around the break-even point financially. It will also help make the wealthy teams a bit more wealthy. It will do little to help those teams that are losing money hand-over-fist.
Hey, I'm writing a paper for my sports economics class and I remember reading about something saying some NHL teams aren't profitable until after a certain time in the season and that they lose money in the earlier parts of the season. Does anyone remember this or can provide me with a link?
1. What is being fought over now will have little effect on club's bottom line. This is about trying to do a beat down on the players.
2. The NHL has won this round, not that it was ever really in doubt. Why not compromise on something like this?
3. You must not like what is going to be agreed on then. The cba the players and owners are going to sign, will help the teams around the break-even point financially. It will also help make the wealthy teams a bit more wealthy. It will do little to help those teams that are losing money hand-over-fist.
4. And we have a lockout next time because that how it going to be from now on.
Since the revenue share for the players is actual (real) dollars paid to a player in a given year, and that escrow is taken from those real dollars...
Why does the NHL insist on capping contract variance at 5%? Why does yearly variance matter at all, in fact? The NHL gets their 50% regardless of how the contract is structured - front loaded contracts just increase the probability that the owners get to keep the escrow payments.
Obviously I'm missing something here - if anyone can shed some light on it I'd appreciate it.
Since the revenue share for the players is actual (real) dollars paid to a player in a given year, and that escrow is taken from those real dollars...
Why does the NHL insist on capping contract variance at 5%? Why does yearly variance matter at all, in fact? The NHL gets their 50% regardless of how the contract is structured - front loaded contracts just increase the probability that the owners get to keep the escrow payments.
Obviously I'm missing something here - if anyone can shed some light on it I'd appreciate it.
Likely to stop dumb contracts like giving a player who wants to play one last year in the NHL a five year contract 20-1-1-1-1 for a average 5 million cap hit
People as a whole are fed up. 2004 it was obvious why pursuing a cap centric focus was necessary for the betterment of the game. This go around however, people are finding it difficult to fathom. For many, they have not perceived Bettman's constant praise of "record revenue" as a marketing gimmick, thus the league should be financially stable. Likewise, people cannot sympathize with players making more in a month than most people in a year. The PA makes it worse on themselves by whining on Twitter, which was not around before.
Overall, this lockout has far less rationale behind it and many see it for precisely what it is: greed on both sides.
I agree here 100 percent... All my hockey friends just see this stopage as a fight amongst greedy players and owners over OUR money. Giving NOTHING back to the fans, NOTHING. Lower ticket prices? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The most honest words that have been said during these negotiations - and it came from neither side.
I get that they're both fighting for what's important to them. I don't begrudge them for that. Don't pander to the fans though. Don't pretend that the fans are any sort of priority to you at the moment and try to use their loyalty and emotions to your gain.
Since the revenue share for the players is actual (real) dollars paid to a player in a given year, and that escrow is taken from those real dollars...
Why does the NHL insist on capping contract variance at 5%? Why does yearly variance matter at all, in fact? The NHL gets their 50% regardless of how the contract is structured - front loaded contracts just increase the probability that the owners get to keep the escrow payments.
Obviously I'm missing something here - if anyone can shed some light on it I'd appreciate it.
They want to address cap circumvention. I've come to learn that people define that differently. I define it as manipulating the structure of a contract in a way to cheat the presence of a cap. Back diving deals manipulate the purpose of the system in place.
I think the solution is increasing contract length to 7 years and provide different variances for UFA and teams resigning their own players. However, if the league wanted to get the PA to be more flexible with variance (which they currently set to a max of 75%), then they could eliminate the variance and keep the 5 or 7 years. The PA says that the variance along with contract term will make caphits for star players rise which leaves less room for the middle class. If you eliminate the variance, would Crosby want to take a 5/7 year deal with unlimited variance? Does he really want to get paid 1-2 million in years 5-7 (while he's still in his prime) just to lower the cap hit? Probably not.
I don't want the owners to give up things just to get a deal done sooner because we're gonna have to live with it for the next 7-10 years. If they're too hasty and sign a bad deal, teams are gonna be in trouble and we're gonna have another lockout once the CBA is up.
I want the owners to get a deal that makes 30+ teams viable and makes it so they don't have to fix anythign with lockouts anymore.
There is no way to make all franchises viable short if a deal that is punitive to the players and why should they agree to that just to fix Gary's mistakes?
Hey, I'm writing a paper for my sports economics class and I remember reading about something saying some NHL teams aren't profitable until after a certain time in the season and that they lose money in the earlier parts of the season. Does anyone remember this or can provide me with a link?
On Hickey Central yesterday they broke it down as follows:
10 teams that make money no matter what.
10 teams that make money if they go on a decent playoff run.
10 teams that lose money no matter what.
They want to address cap circumvention. I've come to learn that people define that differently. I define it as manipulating the structure of a contract in a way to cheat the presence of a cap. Back diving deals manipulate the purpose of the system in place.
I think the solution is increasing contract length to 7 years and provide different variances for UFA and teams resigning their own players. However, if the league wanted to get the PA to be more flexible with variance (which they currently set to a max of 75%), then they could eliminate the variance and keep the 5 or 7 years. The PA says that the variance along with contract term will make caphits for star players rise which leaves less room for the middle class. If you eliminate the variance, would Crosby want to take a 5/7 year deal with unlimited variance? Does he really want to get paid 1-2 million in years 5-7 (while he's still in his prime) just to lower the cap hit? Probably not.
I think I get it. The problem seems to lie in how the cap hit is calculated, not the actual yearly variance.
If they want to truly address cap circumvention, the NHL should make the actual yearly salary paid the cap hit for that season. Obviously, they'd have to re-structure some existing contracts to make that work. But it would be a win-win for everyone involved, possibly more for the players.
- The star players (with 5/7 year contract limits) make more money and can capture the benefits of revenue growth in their 2nd/3rd contracts, rather than signing one 10-15 year deal which doesn't allow for that.
- The rank and file players would benefit in two ways. It would reduce the likelihood that the players' share would exceed (50%) of HRR because front-loaded deals would no longer exist - the cap hit couldn't be less than actual salary paid out. It would also mean that when these players are earning $1 million at the end of their long term deal (with a $7 million cap hit) that cap space is freed up for everyone else.
I have a massive headache - so does this make sense or am I completely out to lunch?
Obama seems to really have the mindset that the League and players should really have. I say that when Obama Presidency ends, Obama for next NHL Commissioner.
I think I get it. The problem seems to lie in how the cap hit is calculated, not the actual yearly variance.
If they want to truly address cap circumvention, the NHL should make the actual yearly salary paid the cap hit for that season. Obviously, they'd have to re-structure some existing contracts to make that work. But it would be a win-win for everyone involved, possibly more for the players.
- The star players (with 5/7 year contract limits) make more money and can capture the benefits of revenue growth in their 2nd/3rd contracts, rather than signing one 10-15 year deal which doesn't allow for that.
- The rank and file players would benefit in two ways. It would reduce the likelihood that the players' share would exceed (50%) of HRR because front-loaded deals would no longer exist - the cap hit couldn't be less than actual salary paid out. It would also mean that when these players are earning $1 million at the end of their long term deal (with a $7 million cap hit) that cap space is freed up for everyone else.
I have a massive headache - so does this make sense or am I completely out to lunch?
I am anti-owner, and and I support the idea of actual salary being the cap hit
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/1...ew-with-obama/
Obama seems to really have the mindset that the League and players should really have. I say that when Obama Presidency ends, Obama for next NHL Commissioner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101
The most honest words that have been said during these negotiations - and it came from neither side.
Isn't it incredibly easy to sound pleasing and popular when you're not employed by either side in the dispute and have made your career on being pleasing and popular?
I have a massive headache - so does this make sense or am I completely out to lunch?
You're on point.
If the owners really want to nip this thing in the bud, then Actual Club Salary should be the cap hit for that season, not this average nonsense. Given the information thats come to light over the past couple months, it's clear that the owners want term limits to A) reduce exposure to insurance costs, B) reduce liabilities from the franchise balance sheet, C) put a leash on GMs, and D) avoid albatross deals (e.g. Redden/Gomez).
By going the Term Limit/Variance route, owners are trying to kill two birds with one stone. The players don't see an absolute need for term limits, and they're right.
Isn't it incredibly easy to sound pleasing and popular when you're not employed by either side in the dispute and have made your career on being pleasing and popular?
.
Doesn't make his words any less accurate, however.
Isn't it incredibly easy to sound pleasing and popular when you're not employed by either side in the dispute and have made your career on being pleasing and popular?
And I'm a fan of his.
Doesn't matter. Each side should put the fans first. They are in business for the fans. The money they earn is the benefit. Without the fan, there is $0 for each side. That's why it being easy to sound pleasing and popular doesn't matter. It's the way it needs to be. All revenue for salaries, and from advertising go away when the fans get turned off and abused. Advertisers only pay for advertising when people are actually interested.
I think I get it. The problem seems to lie in how the cap hit is calculated, not the actual yearly variance.
If they want to truly address cap circumvention, the NHL should make the actual yearly salary paid the cap hit for that season. Obviously, they'd have to re-structure some existing contracts to make that work. But it would be a win-win for everyone involved, possibly more for the players.
- The star players (with 5/7 year contract limits) make more money and can capture the benefits of revenue growth in their 2nd/3rd contracts, rather than signing one 10-15 year deal which doesn't allow for that.
- The rank and file players would benefit in two ways. It would reduce the likelihood that the players' share would exceed (50%) of HRR because front-loaded deals would no longer exist - the cap hit couldn't be less than actual salary paid out. It would also mean that when these players are earning $1 million at the end of their long term deal (with a $7 million cap hit) that cap space is freed up for everyone else.
I have a massive headache - so does this make sense or am I completely out to lunch?
I think many here have made that suggestion and I think some have explained why that wouldn't work but I wouldn't mind seeing them adopt that method either. That way neither side can cheat. However, I think the players would be more opposed to this than some owners. The players are already complaining that a caphit with a limited term and variance in place would increase for star players leaving less money for the middle players. At least with variance, you can get a caphit that is lesser than the highest salary paid throughout the term of the contract. With the method proposed, the caphit will undoubtedly be higher in any given year and would affect other players during that time frame of when the highest salaries are being paid out. Crosby would have a caphit of 12M for 6 years straight before it fell to 9M and even that is higher than what his current caphit is. That would actually mean even less money for the middle players.
Last edited by HockeyCrazed101: 12-14-2012 at 12:21 PM.
