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.
LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)
Good night, a $60 Million cap? What the heck are they trying to do, make sure it's impossible to field a decent team? Good grief... Tell me current SPCs cap hits are at least going to go down with the cap... Perish the thought of all the teams that are above 60 million after this year that will be affected by this... For crying out loud! What a bunch of bull crap.
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.
Other elements that would be new to the NHL: the creation of an "interview period" for unrestricted free agents, like the NBA, and the implementation of a weighted draft lottery expanded to all non-playoff teams.
I wouldn't mind seeing a weighted lottery of some fashion. Whether it's modeled on the NBA's or something different.
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.
"No contractual salary rollbacks" simply means that there will be no across-the-board reduction in dollar amounts stated on contracts. Owners will write checks to the players based on what amount is stated on their current contracts. That being said, those amounts will be subject to the escrow mechanism and effectively reduce the actual amount recieved by the players, at least until revenue growth reaches a certain level.
In 2005 there was a salary rollback in the tune of 24%. In other words, for every year remaining on Player X's contract, the stated salary amount was reduced by 24%, then the rest subject to escrow.
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.
No contractual roll backs refers to the fact players contracts will remain unchanged unlike the last CBA where the actual dollar value of the contract was reduced.
Had to read that twice - correct me if I'm misinterpreting - are you suggesting that perhaps the reason Fehr took this giant step downwards from MLB is because there might be an historic/legacy opportunity re: decertification?
If I've read you right, I'm inclined to agree.
Well it can't be just to make a deal, right? Anyone could do that. Paul Kelly could've done that.
But a fight against a league and ownership group that cancelled a season to get the one thing Fehr dislikes the most? Getting hired by a PA that expressly didn't want a cap in either 94-95, or 04-05?
The NHL may not be a popular league, but it is a professional one. If we're talking about some historic opportunity in terms of labor issues, is there a better league to try it out than in this one? Maybe Fehr agrees to a deal that involves a cap, but it is Donald Fehr we're talking about.
That's just been my question since Fehr took the PA job. Why? Why basically come out of retirement for the NHLPA job? What's in it for Donald Fehr? A job for his brother? Is it just to minimize losses, or is it something else? At least we're yet another day closer to finding that out.
The PA's last counter offer to the owners had around 54-55 percent of the revenue going to the players even though the owners made it clear that 50/50 was the only split they are willing to agree to. So why would anyone think that the PA lead by Fehr will not again counter with a revenue split above 50/50?
I fully expect that is what Fehr would intend to do, it is also why the NHL leaked the major details of what they proposed and did so before Fehr would have had time to go through the proposal and relay the contents to the membership. The NHL is providing the details directly to the PA membership in a far more detailed form compared to the past 4 or 5 points of interest in order for the membership to provide internal pressure on leadership. Many seem to be interpreting this as some sort of panic move on the part of the league. I'm interpreting it like Millard seems to be saying...the NHL is putting forth a detailed and essentially complete proposal from which they will really only accept changes that don't go towards the fundamentals of the system to any significant degree (50/50 share, significant contract restrictions). Move the little things around. Ask for a mint on your pillow every night or to be tucked in by the trainer but stop asking for more than 50% and let's stop pretending that a contract less than 8 years is some sort of horrible cross to bear.
Again, that is not what was said at the time. At the time, it was stated the PA had been crushed, the owners got what they wanted, and players would never make what they gave up during the lockout.
Wrong on all accounts.
I suspect the vast majority of similar statements being expressed around here this time around will also turn out be completely wrong.
They didn't make that up. A very select few might have. But when you base it off of the average salary, the average player and the average career length, you come up short. Now I'm not sure what the average salary was yearly for each of the 7 years of the last CBA. But it was 1.4 (down from 1.7) at the start, and is 2.4 now we'll say it grew by 143k a year, and that the player renegotiated their contract 4 times for 1 year in length (5 years is the average, and they lost a yr from the lockout).
Year 1 - Lockout - lost 1.4m
Year 2 - earned 1.4m
Year 3 - earned 1.54m
Year 4 - earned 1.68m
Year 5 - earned 1.82m
So where did the average player make up that money during their career? Now those that were getting peanuts before, and now got the league minimum (and thus raises), did better. But those who earned 'big raises' would have received those regardless, so it's hard to say that they made up what they lost.
Please show me 3 players that made up what they lost.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
There is no need to go to court to "go after the cap". The union decertifying would take care of the cap. It's illegal outside a CBA. IF there's no union theres no CBA, no Cap, no draft, no guaranteed contracts, no minimum contract etc etc etc.
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
Interesting offer from the owners. Daily says, that's a hill we will die on. They then prpose to change exactly that, from 5 to 6 years. Maybe that's all the players need to pat themselves on the back about a victory they've acheived? Knowing how this has played out thus far, they'll counter with another proposal that only reaches 50-50 based on certain economic events happening, which would never be acceptable to the owners. .
Yet they still haven't gone past 7 years, nor have they made major changes to the variance.
Something that surprised me is that it looks like they've adopted (in part or in whole) the PA's buyout request.
2. Additional restrictions on Club "buy-out" rights of Player contracts;
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
I think that's going to be a hell of a tough sell in court.
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
Interesting. Hadn't heard that. I did hear one lawyer saying it would probably be legal if the NHL re-organized itself in a model such as the MLS. The MLS is a single company and team "owners" are shareholders in MLS.
If the NHLPA formally responds, to this offer, or even counters with an offer of their own, doesn't at make the vote to authorize a "disclaimer of interest" pretty much irrelevant. It would be a farce for the NHLPA to continue bargaining after the authorization vote, and then disclaim interest if they can't come to an agreement. I think that the NHLPA and players need to decide now whether they want to ignore the offer and have the NHLPA disclaim interest, or go ahead with collective bargaining.
Interesting. Hadn't heard that. I did hear one lawyer saying it would probably be legal if the NHL re-organized itself in a model such as the MLS. The MLS is a single company and team "owners" are shareholders in MLS.
I'd have to go digging to find the original link. It was a legal summary of decertification possibilities from about a month ago.
I'm pretty certain the Justice department would intervene if the NHL tried to reorganize under the MLS model.
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
You would think that it wouldn't be that hard when they can point to record growth and revenues almost each of the 7 years with the cap in place.
"No contractual salary rollbacks" simply means that there will be no across-the-board reduction in dollar amounts stated on contracts. Owners will write checks to the players based on what amount is stated on their current contracts. That being said, those amounts will be subject to the escrow mechanism and effectively reduce the actual amount recieved by the players, at least until revenue growth reaches a certain level.
In 2005 there was a salary rollback in the tune of 24%. In other words, for every year remaining on Player X's contract, the stated salary amount was reduced by 24%, then the rest subject to escrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick
No contractual roll backs refers to the fact players contracts will remain unchanged unlike the last CBA where the actual dollar value of the contract was reduced.
Players can DOI whenever they want but that itself has no effect as NHL already filed a court case against them claiming it's nothing but a negotiating tactic.
A real decertification of union would be much more effective but takes so many months that there wouldn't be a season.
I think it's safe to say if the NHLPA doesn't accept this offer then the NHL might as well cancel the remainder of the season.
Nah, there is still time for the PA to offer a counter-proposal to this.
But it'll be interesting to see how the courts (if it goes that way) view a counterproposal from a union that voted to allow their leaders to diclaim interest.
I could be wrong, but this offer from the owners could be a multi-pronged method of a) showing good faith in continuing to negotiate, b) put pressure on the union to act, c) draw the union into a legal pickle jar.
