HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Lockout V: Take the Long Way Home

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-27-2012, 07:55 AM
  #901
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
The issue though is that the players are not willing to accept anything close to 50/50 based on their last proposal. Everyone thinks its a couple of small contracting items, but the economic gap is still very very wide.
I agree that it's not a true 50/50 in the first 3-4 years of the deal because of the Make Whole provision. But it's going to be a steady decline from 57 to 50. This is why the longer the deal, the better IMO. Give the owners at least 4 years at 50/50 and let them hash out the finer details next go-around.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 09:05 AM
  #902
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I agree that it's not a true 50/50 in the first 3-4 years of the deal because of the Make Whole provision. But it's going to be a steady decline from 57 to 50. This is why the longer the deal, the better IMO. Give the owners at least 4 years at 50/50 and let them hash out the finer details next go-around.
Yeah I guess 4 years at 50 -50 is a good stepping stone until they lockout and get 60% in the next CBA.

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 09:16 AM
  #903
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I'm not sure the league says that NHLPA has to accept everything to get a meeting. I think they want to avoid having a meeting, with everyone getting their hopes up, only to have Fehr say "what do you have to give us" and you have no result except a higher frustration level.

If there is no room for meaningful give and take, there will be no meeting. I think NHLPA have to move off their demand for cap on escrow before we'll get anywhere.
I believe you're correct. All I've heard is that Daly has said the league is willing to work with the PA, but they would like an agenda for any meeting before it's scheduled. Not an unreasonable request, especially considering the PA's "moving goalposts" encountered in the past.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Yeah I guess 4 years at 50 -50 is a good stepping stone until they lockout and get 60% in the next CBA.
Just out of curiosity - since the league is clearly trying to get a CBA in line with other North American sports, why would they try to change that so drastically in the next CBA? Wouldn't it seem that they would have to pretty much stay in line with the other sports?

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:11 AM
  #904
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Just out of curiosity - since the league is clearly trying to get a CBA in line with other North American sports, why would they try to change that so drastically in the next CBA? Wouldn't it seem that they would have to pretty much stay in line with the other sports?
I see, so I guess we should ask the NFL and NBA what percentage we can give the players next CBA.

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:27 AM
  #905
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
I agree that it's not a true 50/50 in the first 3-4 years of the deal because of the Make Whole provision. But it's going to be a steady decline from 57 to 50. This is why the longer the deal, the better IMO. Give the owners at least 4 years at 50/50 and let them hash out the finer details next go-around.
Actually the make whole is only a small portion. As is compliance buyouts.


What the NHLPA proposed is a 67.5M cap for next year with limited escrow. Last year the cap was 64.3M and that resulted in a 10% escrow hit.

I've heard that the escrow limit was 10%, but unsure, but cannot believe it would be lower than 5%, more than 15% (any less would be dumping it which they are not, any more you may as well leave it unlimited like it is now based on how the cap is calculated). Numbers are easy to work out though. If revenues were to remain the same last year to this year, this is the percentage paid out to players outside of compliance buyouts and make whole :

5% limit = 63% of revenue year 1
10% limit = 60% of revenue year 1
15% limit = 57% of revenue year 1

Thats before make whole or compliance buyouts.

Now, you also have to factor in growth, positive or negative. Positive growth drops the percentage number, negative growth only increases it.

Now if I am an owner, looking at those numbers, and worried about growth over the next few years, I cannot sign that deal.

For example, if its a 10% limit, and you assume 4% growth over the next few years (and is anyone predicting that high?) you get

Year 1 = 60%
Year 2 = 56%
Year 3 = 52%

So 3 years to break even based on the last deal (56% over 3 years vs 57% on last deal) and that is assuming the players do not have the cap going up every year to match growth (have not heard how their proposal addresses growth when the cap number is well out of whack, although I cannot believe there is not some growth factor in there).

Then you have compliance buyouts and make whole, which actually runs your break even point to about 5 years out. So all in all the players are asking for what will likely be 5 more years at an average of 57%, more depending upon growth and if the cap mechanism actually moves up.

This is a huge disconnect with what the owners have been asking for. Its not close.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:29 AM
  #906
HavlatMach9
Registered User
 
HavlatMach9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I see, so I guess we should ask the NFL and NBA what percentage we can give the players next CBA.
Yea it still seems random to me to decide 50/50 based on other sports who happen to be at 50/50 not necessarily because it's the right share. I imagine the NHL will see how 50/50 goes and could reduce it again next CBA.

HavlatMach9 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:32 AM
  #907
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Yeah I guess 4 years at 50 -50 is a good stepping stone until they lockout and get 60% in the next CBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boltsfan2029 View Post
Just out of curiosity - since the league is clearly trying to get a CBA in line with other North American sports, why would they try to change that so drastically in the next CBA? Wouldn't it seem that they would have to pretty much stay in line with the other sports?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
I see, so I guess we should ask the NFL and NBA what percentage we can give the players next CBA.
The NHL has to do what's best for them. Now that doesn't necessarily mean following North American Pro Sports industry standard. That also doesn't necessarily mean that its a foregone conclusion that they'll use a lockout to their advantage every single time the CBA is up for renegotation.

A couple of things worth thinking about. First, it's reasonable that the NHL wants to keep the union intact for antitrust law exemption and cost control purposes. Putting the NHLPA in a headlock and waiting for them to scream "Uncle!" every 7 years is going to get old fast and we're already seeing the NHLPA consider whether they'd be better off as individual employees. Second, it's reasonable to assume that the voting members of the NHL do a cost/benefit analysis before voting in favor of a lockout. These things can potentially do irreporable damage to fan goodwill, sponsorship relationships, and future revenue growth. Once the owners achieve in acquiring certain operating conditions, it's fair to assume the costs of a new lockout will exceed the benefits.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:40 AM
  #908
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Actually the make whole is only a small portion. As is compliance buyouts.


What the NHLPA proposed is a 67.5M cap for next year with limited escrow. Last year the cap was 64.3M and that resulted in a 10% escrow hit.
<snip>
So 3 years to break even based on the last deal (56% over 3 years vs 57% on last deal) and that is assuming the players do not have the cap going up every year to match growth (have not heard how their proposal addresses growth when the cap number is well out of whack, although I cannot believe there is not some growth factor in there).

Then you have compliance buyouts and make whole, which actually runs your break even point to about 5 years out. So all in all the players are asking for what will likely be 5 more years at an average of 57%, more depending upon growth and if the cap mechanism actually moves up.

This is a huge disconnect with what the owners have been asking for. Its not close.
Nice post. Yeah once you get into the escrow limits and compliance buyouts, they're far far apart. People don't seem to realize that.

It would be interesting to see how long it would take to get a deal done if all they had to discuss was contract length, variance and term (assuming make whole was agreed upon).

__________________
I've been looking for trouble... but trouble hasn't been cooperating!
Riptide is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:40 AM
  #909
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,379
vCash: 500
At this point the whole fiasco should simply be embarrassing for both sides. They are being looked at by the bulk of the people, as a complete and utter joke.

CarlWinslow is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:42 AM
  #910
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,059
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Actually the make whole is only a small portion. As is compliance buyouts.

...

This is a huge disconnect with what the owners have been asking for. Its not close.
Nice breakdown. I was fuzzy on the compliance breakdown stuff.

Crease is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:43 AM
  #911
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
The NHL has to do what's best for them. Now that doesn't necessarily mean following North American Pro Sports industry standard. That also doesn't necessarily mean that its a foregone conclusion that they'll use a lockout to their advantage every single time the CBA is up for renegotation.

A couple of things worth thinking about. First, it's reasonable that the NHL wants to keep the union intact for antitrust law exemption and cost control purposes. Putting the NHLPA in a headlock and waiting for them to scream "Uncle!" every 7 years is going to get old fast and we're already seeing the NHLPA consider whether they'd be better off as individual employees. Second, it's reasonable to assume that the voting members of the NHL do a cost/benefit analysis before voting in favor of a lockout. These things can potentially do irreporable damage to fan goodwill, sponsorship relationships, and future revenue growth. Once the owners achieve in acquiring certain operating conditions, it's fair to assume the costs of a new lockout will exceed the benefits.
That day will never come, just look at the Leafs, Rangers, Habs and several others they voted for a lockout and see how much money they made and a lockout is still beneficial to them. As someone mentioned somewhere on this site, look at the money the NFL makes and they still had a lockout, they even locked out the refs. How dumb is that?

Confucius is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 10:55 AM
  #912
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Nice breakdown. I was fuzzy on the compliance breakdown stuff.
Actually that really only addressed the cap number proposed for next year and the escrow limits. What I found, perhaps telling, was that the number proposed for this year was 5% more than last year. Not coincidence IMHO that that was the escalator the players could use under the previous deal. Too much unknown, but what if the players have the same thing built into the new deal? With a 5% escalator guarantee, and limited escrow, it can get really ugly really fast. Thats why I'd like to see the players proposal because there are some guessing points in there.


No one knows for sure what the compliance buyouts would be. Gomez, Redden, those are easy. Could Luongo fall into that? Dipietro?

Just a rough guess, but if 1 out of 2 teams dumped a player making 4M a year, 3 years left on average, that would add roughly 1% to the players share over the three years. Obviously it would be a bit more than that to start and taper off pretty quickly.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 11:08 AM
  #913
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 38,050
vCash: 50
I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of compliance buyout system in the CBA, just to make sure the transition from $70M cap to $60M cap isn't too brutal. There would have to be significant limitations for it not to be too big of a cost to teams. It would defeat the purpose of going to 50/50.

Freudian is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 11:26 AM
  #914
FakeKidPoker*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,676
vCash: 500
@RealBillWatters

ONE STEP FWD 2 BACK OCT 16 NHL offers full sked 200 mil(make whole)for minor tweaks in cont issues. PA turns it down. Net effect;PA -800 mil

@michaelgrange

@RealBillWatters That Fehr never negotiated off that offer is something he should have to answer for .

FakeKidPoker* is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 12:11 PM
  #915
lost puck
Registered User
 
lost puck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 453
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeKidPoker View Post
@RealBillWatters That Fehr never negotiated off that offer is something he should have to answer for .
This, the NHL moved from their low-ball initial offer and the PA just keep say 57%, never once moved from that until what mid-Nov? Honestly at this point though I'm losing interest.

lost puck is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 12:21 PM
  #916
Ianturnbull
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 40
vCash: 500
My guess is the owners won't entertain talking to the players until the Jan 2, DOI window closes. It's a nice way to send a message to the players. They have nothing to gain talking before then.

Ianturnbull is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:00 PM
  #917
moosehead81
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Great White North
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ianturnbull View Post
My guess is the owners won't entertain talking to the players until the Jan 2, DOI window closes. It's a nice way to send a message to the players. They have nothing to gain talking before then.
Unless the PA files its disclaimer by then, in which case you have no-one to talk to and would be looking at probably a lengthy nuclear winter.

moosehead81 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:03 PM
  #918
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,986
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by lost puck View Post
This, the NHL moved from their low-ball initial offer and the PA just keep say 57%, never once moved from that until what mid-Nov? Honestly at this point though I'm losing interest.
The NHLPA hasn't really moved to far from 57% yet. Unless there is substantial revenue growth, the NHL won't see 50/50 for 4 to 5 years with the NHLPA's offer. The NHLPA keeps adding "poison pills" to their offers and their share stays above 50% for most of the life of their proposal. The latest is an inflated cap and escrow limits.

I'm really tired of most of the media saying that the NHLPA has agreed to 50/50 and only contract rights are the obstacle to a deal. See ottawah's post above: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=905

That is what the media should be showing the world, but they don't. Probably because they know that the NHL will eventually come back and they don't want to lose their interviews with the players.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:11 PM
  #919
Butch 19
King me
 
Butch 19's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Geographical Oddity
Country: United States
Posts: 11,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
That day will never come, just look at the Leafs, Rangers, Habs and several others they voted for a lockout and see how much money they made and a lockout is still beneficial to them. As someone mentioned somewhere on this site, look at the money the NFL makes and they still had a lockout, they even locked out the refs. How dumb is that?
Well, in spite of a lockout, the NFL missed no regular season games.

The wealthiest sport PA managed to put aside their differences with management to get a deal done, somehow. Yet the poorest of the big 4 PAs cannot seem to do that - even thought they average a higher salary than football.

Butch 19 is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:20 PM
  #920
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of compliance buyout system in the CBA, just to make sure the transition from $70M cap to $60M cap isn't too brutal. There would have to be significant limitations for it not to be too big of a cost to teams. It would defeat the purpose of going to 50/50.
There's 268 contracts (on NHL rosters) coming off the books June 30th 2013 - that's 39% of current contracts. That would leave the money owed to the players (under contract for the 13/14 season) at ~1.387B.

June 30th 2014 see's another 215 contracts expire or 31% (of those currently under contract on an NHL roster - as per capgeek).

Honestly it's really only year 1 that's the issue. And the league got around that by having/proposing a soft cap in year 1. Year 2 means some teams need to make some trades for cap reasons... but most other than perhaps Vancouver would be fine (and if they traded one of Schneider/Luongo they'd be fine).

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:33 PM
  #921
stuffradio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,383
vCash: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosehead81 View Post
Unless the PA files its disclaimer by then, in which case you have no-one to talk to and would be looking at probably a lengthy nuclear winter.
Not to mention 100's of players losing their jobs.

stuffradio is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 01:41 PM
  #922
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
TThat is what the media should be showing the world, but they don't. Probably because they know that the NHL will eventually come back and they don't want to lose their interviews with the players.
Honestly, its because I think few of them actually take the time to look at the proposals to see what they are really made of, they just want to get the bullet points, write an article on why Bettman/Fehr are so bad (and lets face it, 50% of these reporters have an agenda to start with, so its not like they are doing objective reporting anyways). The math is not hard, but they do not want to do the work it seems. Reporters eyes glaze over when Fehr or Bettman starts talking terms they do not understand, and instead of admitting their ignorance and asking, they just keep nodding their head.

McKenzie is the only reporter I have seen so far who analyzed the players proposal to the point he realized its not 50/50.

I personally do not think the reporters are skipping it to keep interviews. I fully expect 95% of the NHLPA do not even understand what they are offering is not 50/50. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of then even gave their own unions proposals more than a 1 minute bullet point glance (although arguably thats all Bettman/Daly seem to need to shoot it down). Some may appreciate the honesty more than people give them credit for. I'd bet 75% of the players think they are at 50/50 and the owners just do not want to play is the only explanation. I think if they realized just how far apart the proposals are, the pressure on the union by rank and file membership would be significantly higher to move their proposal forward, work off the owners proposal.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 02:17 PM
  #923
Riptide
Registered User
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
I fully expect 95% of the NHLPA do not even understand what they are offering is not 50/50. I'd be surprised if more than 5% of then even gave their own unions proposals more than a 1 minute bullet point glance (although arguably thats all Bettman/Daly seem to need to shoot it down). Some may appreciate the honesty more than people give them credit for. I'd bet 75% of the players think they are at 50/50 and the owners just do not want to play is the only explanation. I think if they realized just how far apart the proposals are, the pressure on the union by rank and file membership would be significantly higher to move their proposal forward, work off the owners proposal.
When you are looking at the math, and can see it will not be anywhere close to 50/50 for 3-4 years... does it take much time to really consider it?

NHL offers 54, 52, 50.5 (something like that with make whole), and the PA comes back with something that would never hit 50/50 due to escrow limits... what more thought is there to do?

One side is looking for 50/50, and the other never really comes close.

Riptide is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 02:19 PM
  #924
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Good bye salary cap!!! Enjoy retirement Bettman!

Too bad we're probably going to lose at least a year to put this to rest.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-27-2012, 02:20 PM
  #925
RedWingsNow*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
When you are looking at the math, and can see it will not be anywhere close to 50/50 for 3-4 years... does it take much time to really consider it?

NHL offers 54, 52, 50.5 (something like that with make whole), and the PA comes back with something that would never hit 50/50 due to escrow limits... what more thought is there to do?

One side is looking for 50/50, and the other never really comes close.

Why should they?

They're giving up percentage. Not all of it. But lots of it.

Now, what are you giving up?

RedWingsNow* 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 01:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.