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)
I suspect this offer will go nowhere. I don't think it's anywhere near what the PA will accept. It seems clear to me Fehr's marching orders are to negotiate a deal that doesn't include a large number of major givebacks. The PA seems to be very clear they will say no, rather than get on slippery slope of negotiating within the owner's framework. That framework requires the PA make concessions in every negotiated area.
From that perspective, Fehr's negotiating version of the terrible twos not only makes sense, but seems like a sound approach.
BS. Next July there will be 8 teams with salaries over 56m (salaries, NOT cap hits). 11 with salaries over 50m. The average salary committed is ~46m. Yes teams like SJ or Calgary or Chicago might have to make a trade. Yes it's going to suck - but c'est la vie. These GMs all knew that things were going to change. Those same GMs choose to go out and spend to a 70m cap (that the NHL said would likely change, and that the NHL did not want to see increased before the CBA ended).
Looking back, Shero did a great job of shedding salary. Things will still be tight at 60m, but it won't be the end of the world.
MOD
This situation makes a mess for the teams that want to spend money. They can't spend money because they have to address there numerous roster needs likely with $10 Million or less (Keep in mind, it's not good practice to be up against the cap). It makes a mess of things for FAs because these teams can't sign these players and the rest of league are less are either undesirable destinations or they are teams that don't spend money anyways. Teams are screwed, FAs are screwed. This. Is. Not. Good.
Last edited by mouser: 12-28-2012 at 06:12 PM.
Reason: not necessary
On the $60m cap... I don't know why this is so surprising to everyone. It's presumably based on 50% of where they think revenue will be in 2013-14, with some small amount of the make whole dollars...
With the damage caused by the lockout, I don't see how they can reasonably project growth to offset a significant portion of the drop from 57% to 50%.
As for teams getting screwed, it's going to happen regardless, and the NHL has certainly indicated that they're prepared to do it. I think the much bigger concern, is the UFA class this year, who basically take the entire 57->50 hit for the entire league.
The question for me is -- when you do the math on the projections for a 48 game season... and how much of the make-whole is required to pay all existing contracts, is there enough left over that the PA could tell the NHL that they want the remainder burned through in 2013-14 to ensure the cap is as close to $70m as possible?
“Actually, I had no reaction,” said defenceman Kevin Bieksa. “It’s been so long in going through the ups and downs and I haven’t looked at the proposal in depth yet, so I can’t comment until we digest the numbers. Let’s not try to get too high, but at the same time, it’s good we’re talking again.
“These are the final minutes. If there were no talks leading up to these (next) three weeks, it would be a pretty pathetic effort by both sides and I think the public would realize that. We have to put all the cards on the table now and show our best hands and get this thing figured out.”
They already do. The best players are significantly underpaid, while the minimum salary is far too high. The PA does, in effect, institute a high degree of revenue sharing betwixt the players.
Now that've cleared that up, I can only assume from your comments that you will now be strongly supportive of owners sharing gate receipts and local broadcast revenue.
The best players are significantly underpaid? Like who? This is a joke, right?
2007 - NYI lost to Buffalo, 4-1, Eastern Conf. quarterfinals
This isn't "parity". This is the typical good teams staying competitive while other teams naturally run their course and fall apart with their window of competition closed and the previous bad teams drafting well and getting good. This isn't parity.
The only way you can say that is by comparing PO appearances from years under the old CBA.
__________________ "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."
So why can't they adjust the cap for the next full season? Let's say they make $2.2B during the shortened season (assuming 48 games), why can't they just adjust the cap as if they made about $3.8B?
I think that would make more sense than ruining every teams' cap.
Because revenues in Oct/Nov are not the same as revenues in Feb+. So you can't just pro-rate the revenue and say well we should make X. I would suspect that Fehr would be able to get that slightly higher.
The best players are significantly underpaid? Like who? This is a joke, right?
It's not a joke at all. Top players in the NHL are paid far less than their peers in the other major sports. Meanwhile, the NHL has both the highest minimum salary in pro sport AND guaranteed contracts. In a cap world, to the extent the best are underpaid, others will by definition be overpaid. Similarly, to the extent the lessers are overpaid, the best must be underpaid.
And that's all just a complicated way of saying "revenue sharing"....
Now that've cleared that up, I can only assume from your comments that you will now be strongly supportive of owners sharing gate receipts and local broadcast revenue.
Unless the average ticket price is over 300 (I think it's 330 something), the NHL redistributing 200m does more for those teams than sharing 50% of everyone's gate.
I looked for TV revenues, but couldn't find much. However these clubs are NOT getting 100m deals... that means that while I think the TV should be shared as central revenue, the dollar values we're talking about is peanuts.
I do not see the NHL redistributing 200m plus yearly, PLUS giving up their individual TV deals to split those.
It's not a joke at all. Top players in the NHL are paid far less than their peers in the other major sports. Meanwhile, the NHL has both the highest minimum salary in pro sport AND guaranteed contracts. In a cap world, to the extent the best are underpaid, others will by definition be overpaid. Similarly, to the extent the lessers are overpaid, the best must be underpaid.
And that's all just a complicated way of saying "revenue sharing"....
How do the revenues of the other major sports compare to hockey's revenues? I think this info needs to be included to substantiate your argument.
How do the revenues of the other major sports compare to hockey's revenues? I think this info needs to be included to substantiate your argument.
That level of detail is not necessary (although I'd be delighted if you worked through all the nuance). Knowing that the minimum for the NHL is higher than the others while the maximum is lower is enough, as normalizing both extremes to revenues results in revenues being mathematically cancelled out.
The PA overpays the bottom of the period, and underpays the top of the pyramid. It would be interesting to trace back the roots of that...
No, he's comparing the top players' salaries to those of the other sports.
Not sure where you got that from, it sounded like he was referring to "revenue sharing" amongst NHL players (correct me if I'm wrong Dado). And the fact is since the cap was instilled, the top guys have made less and the 3rd and 4th liners have made more.
That level of detail is not necessary (although I'd be delighted if you worked through all the nuance). Knowing that the minimum for the NHL is higher than the others while the maximum is lower is enough, as normalizing both extremes to revenues results in revenues being mathematically cancelled out.
The PA overpays the bottom of the period, and underpays the top of the pyramid. It would be interesting to trace back the roots of that...
I think that level of detail is critical. The NFL is what, a 9 billion dollar industry, and each team plays only 16 games per season? I think they can afford to pay top players much more than the NHL can.
The best players are significantly underpaid? Like who? This is a joke, right?
Not really. Just look at Webers contract. Or Suters. Or Crosbys. In those first years they're earning something along the lines of what they could probably receive (if not more) on the open market with no cap restrictions. Teams can't handle a lot of big cap hits... so they pay the stars less. Everyone else picks up that slack.
Whether they're overpaid or underpaid is subjective on what you feel they should be paid.
Not sure where you got that from, it sounded like he was referring to "revenue sharing" amongst NHL players (correct me if I'm wrong Dado). And the fact is since the cap was instilled, the top guys have made less and the 3rd and 4th liners have made more.
Umm, here? Read the bolded sentence.
Quote:
It's not a joke at all. Top players in the NHL are paid far less than their peers in the other major sports. Meanwhile, the NHL has both the highest minimum salary in pro sport AND guaranteed contracts. In a cap world, to the extent the best are underpaid, others will by definition be overpaid. Similarly, to the extent the lessers are overpaid, the best must be underpaid.
And that's all just a complicated way of saying "revenue sharing"....
Only to people who call them villains no matter what they do anyway.
Well, people who call them greedy villains have a very good case with average salary being 2M per year according to every NHL proposal since october. Players refuse those offers while offering their whiny "we just want to play" -claims on twitter.
