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.
Should the owners propose a soft landing?
View Poll Results: If the owners proposed a soft landing, would it get a deal done?
If the NHL is the only one caving in then Fehr will be laughing all the way to the bank and we'll end up with a stubborn NHLPA wanting to abolish the cap in 6 years time.
Granted, the players are looking for set revenue. But Jesus Christ. The Players are giving up almost exactly what the NHL wants.
It isn't linked, but who cares? What good has linkage done for the NHL?
If the sport grows like it did during the last 7 years, which also include the worst financial meltdown 75 years ... then the NHL wins huge?
So who's talking about canceling the season over principle now? The owners. That's who.
Here's proposal II.
Players receive 24.7 percent of new revenues until the league hits 50 percent.
Granted, the players are looking for set revenue. But Jesus Christ. The Players are giving up almost exactly what the NHL wants.
It isn't linked, but who cares? What good has linkage done for the NHL?
If the sport grows like it did during the last 7 years, which also include the worst financial meltdown 75 years ... then the NHL wins huge?
So who's talking about canceling the season over principle now? The owners. That's who.
Here's proposal II.
Players receive 24.7 percent of new revenues until the league hits 50 percent.
I really have a hard time understanding why people are pissed about these offers.
This is a major concession from the PA.
Bettman's little hissyfit was disingenuous. He planned to storm out unless the PA gave him exactly what he wanted.
The player haters at BOH need to wake up, throw some water in their face and have a look at the numbers.
Because if league revenue doesn't grow at that rate, or worse decreases, the players are completely insulated from it while the owners bear 100% of the burden? They are 100% not interested in cap delinkage, so it's 100% not what they're looking for. Nor are they looking to reach the goal of 50:50 only in the last year of the deal.
Until they deal with more rapidly reducing real percentages, not made up numbers based on hopeful projections, it's not really meaningful concessions. They're giving away money they don't actually have, and insisting they keep every cent they do regardless of the fiscal health of the league.
So 82% of your respondents agreed that a soft landing would be a good idea, but today the players are being vilified for it.
Something's not right.
part of it is that the players do, at some point, need to offer a true soft landing where they are not guaranteed their money if revenues go down below 2011-12 numbers.
the other part is mostly poor explaining of the offer by the NHLPA coupled with bettman's hissyfit - the world right now thinks they're still very far apart whereas they actually are quite close.
The way i see it, bump up that revenue sharing offer by another 50-100M, install a true 55%-53%-52%-51%-50%-50% soft landing, agree to max contract lengths (i've always advocated 7 years, because that is the length that the NHL can currently insure), leave UFA/RFA rights as it is, and BAM - this whole thing is done in two weeks.
part of it is that the players do, at some point, need to offer a true soft landing where they are not guaranteed their money if revenues go down below 2011-12 numbers.
the other part is mostly poor explaining of the offer by the NHLPA coupled with bettman's hissyfit - the world right now thinks they're still very far apart whereas they actually are quite close.
The way i see it, bump up that revenue sharing offer by another 50-100M, install a true 55%-53%-52%-51%-50%-50% soft landing, agree to max contract lengths (i've always advocated 7 years, because that is the length that the NHL can currently insure), leave UFA/RFA rights as it is, and BAM - this whole thing is done in two weeks.
If you believe Mirtle though, Bettman won't give in on term limits, and possibly the UFA age. That would be really hard for the PA to accept along with the these other concessions. I understand why Bettman wants the term limits. I don't understand why he wants the other things.
part of it is that the players do, at some point, need to offer a true soft landing where they are not guaranteed their money if revenues go down below 2011-12 numbers.
the other part is mostly poor explaining of the offer by the NHLPA coupled with bettman's hissyfit - the world right now thinks they're still very far apart whereas they actually are quite close.
The way i see it, bump up that revenue sharing offer by another 50-100M, install a true 55%-53%-52%-51%-50%-50% soft landing, agree to max contract lengths (i've always advocated 7 years, because that is the length that the NHL can currently insure), leave UFA/RFA rights as it is, and BAM - this whole thing is done in two weeks.
If the season were to start on Nov 2nd then we'd have to come to a new CBA agreement within like 10 days max.
If you believe Mirtle though, Bettman won't give in on term limits, and possibly the UFA age. That would be really hard for the PA to accept along with the these other concessions. I understand why Bettman wants the term limits. I don't understand why he wants the other things.
well, my solution gets bettman his term limits, just two years longer.
UFA age, they're arguing about what, a year now? That's not going to be a problem.
The hardest part of my proposal is to get the top-10 to agree to increase revenue sharing to around 250M-300M, and that's something the owners have shown flexibility on so far.
over the next little while:
Early next week: The NHL comes back with soft landing, probably 53-51-50-50-50-50. Possibly increases term limit to 7 years, proclaims publicly that 7 years is the absolute most they can do because of insurance. Huge PR win for the NHL, public cannot really disagree with either of those principle terms.
Late next week: players come back, alter soft landing in their favor BUT AGREE to linked soft landing and not absolute dollar compensation. Refuse on term limits and other contracting changes. Demand more revenue sharing.
Early week 2: owners come back with similar soft landing to players proposal, insists on term limit, lets players keep UFA/RFA age, increase revenue sharing by x (my guess is to 250).
at that point, they're basically done. A couple of 10hr negotiating sessions later we have a new agreement.
Because if league revenue doesn't grow at that rate, or worse decreases, the players are completely insulated from it while the owners bear 100% of the burden? They are 100% not interested in cap delinkage, so it's 100% not what they're looking for. Nor are they looking to reach the goal of 50:50 only in the last year of the deal.
Until they deal with more rapidly reducing real percentages, not made up numbers based on hopeful projections, it's not really meaningful concessions. They're giving away money they don't actually have, and insisting they keep every cent they do regardless of the fiscal health of the league.
Lordy. It's that kind of think that put the NHL in this mess to begin with.
If the NHL hadn't been so idiotic with linkage in the first place, we might have a $45million salary cap right now.
If the NHL had said,,, we'll give you 42M year one, and go up 3 percent a year,,,
Instead, they tied everything to revenue, revenue went through the roof, and it nearly drove their poor teams out of business.
Once again, the NHL is trying to win something that will hurt them...
Which again, leads me to wonder if the NHL wants 5 or 6 teams losing money every contract... for this very purpose.
part of it is that the players do, at some point, need to offer a true soft landing where they are not guaranteed their money if revenues go down below 2011-12 numbers.
This is the owners lockout. They began the bargaining with an offer sure to cause a lockout. The players shouldn't be on the hook caused by lost revenue for Bettman's lockout.
To me, I make this crystal clear to Bettman, if I am Fehr.
You locked us out. You didn't present responsible offer until Oct. 16. You're responsible for any short term revenue loss. We're not eating it.
Quote:
the other part is mostly poor explaining of the offer by the NHLPA coupled with bettman's hissyfit - the world right now thinks they're still very far apart whereas they actually are quite close.
That's because the media completely tanked.
TSN still hasn't reported it, as far as I can tell.
Quote:
The way i see it, bump up that revenue sharing offer by another 50-100M, install a true 55%-53%-52%-51%-50%-50% soft landing, agree to max contract lengths (i've always advocated 7 years, because that is the length that the NHL can currently insure), leave UFA/RFA rights as it is, and BAM - this whole thing is done in two weeks.
This is the owners lockout. They began the bargaining with an offer sure to cause a lockout. The players shouldn't be on the hook caused by lost revenue for Bettman's lockout.
Oh please. There would be no serious negotiation from the player's side until they start feeling the pressure of losing paychecks due to a lockout.
Much like the owners need to start losing money to negotiate.
Lordy. It's that kind of think that put the NHL in this mess to begin with.
If the NHL hadn't been so idiotic with linkage in the first place, we might have a $45million salary cap right now.
If the NHL had said,,, we'll give you 42M year one, and go up 3 percent a year,,,
Instead, they tied everything to revenue, revenue went through the roof, and it nearly drove their poor teams out of business.
Once again, the NHL is trying to win something that will hurt them...
Which again, leads me to wonder if the NHL wants 5 or 6 teams losing money every contract... for this very purpose.
All of that may be true but it doesn't make the NHLPA offers a good deal. They take the problems created by linkage and (potentially to likely, based on your level of economic optimism) make them worse.
All of that may be true but it doesn't make the NHLPA offers a good deal. They take the problems created by linkage and (potentially to likely, based on your level of economic optimism) make them worse.
How does it make them worse?
Unless you're planning on a no-growth league, which is really unlikely considering the least 10 years of growth included a full year lockout and a great recession and financial crisis, this is a major victiry.
This really comes down to one thing now with Bettman and his clones.
50/50 now, or no hockey.
It's a bald-faced powerplay and even if the lemmings buy it, it's going to blow up in the little dictator's face.
This is the owners lockout. They began the bargaining with an offer sure to cause a lockout. The players shouldn't be on the hook caused by lost revenue for Bettman's lockout.
To me, I make this crystal clear to Bettman, if I am Fehr.
You locked us out. You didn't present responsible offer until Oct. 16. You're responsible for any short term revenue loss. We're not eating it.
philosophically, i agree. But that's not going to get a deal done. If the players insist on that, a deal wont get done very soon.
there is another alternative, which i proposed on the sens board, and that is keep the owners last proposal, but instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have it come out of a supplementary fund funded by the top revenue teams. That's a perfect way to ensure that the salary savings from the players concessions to this point go to the teams that need it instead of the teams that dont.
philosophically, i agree. But that's not going to get a deal done. If the players insist on that, a deal wont get done very soon.
there is another alternative, which i proposed on the sens board, and that is keep the owners last proposal, but instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have it come out of a supplementary fund funded by the top revenue teams. That's a perfect way to ensure that the salary savings from the players concessions to this point go to the teams that need it instead of the teams that dont.
It's a good idea but it still puts the entire onus on the players to pay for the owners' mistakes, perpetuating a system that created the mistake.
philosophically, i agree. But that's not going to get a deal done. If the players insist on that, a deal wont get done very soon.
there is another alternative, which i proposed on the sens board, and that is keep the owners last proposal, but instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have it come out of a supplementary fund funded by the top revenue teams. That's a perfect way to ensure that the salary savings from the players concessions to this point go to the teams that need it instead of the teams that dont.
I don't know if rich owners are going to want to start a separate RS fund to pay off salaries for all the other teams. If they agree to it, that would be awesome. I do think that the salaries coming out of RS should be distributed in a way that links to annual revenue growth. New contracts will be subject to a 50% share AND will be subject to linkage, why should existing contracts be different?
At worst, maybe the owners can agree to take from the existing RS fund if they don't want to start a separate one. I do think it has potential but it relies on mostly a handful of teams to really do the bulk of the paying.
Unless you're planning on a no-growth league, which is really unlikely considering the least 10 years of growth included a full year lockout and a great recession and financial crisis, this is a major victiry.
This really comes down to one thing now with Bettman and his clones.
50/50 now, or no hockey.
It's a bald-faced powerplay and even if the lemmings buy it, it's going to blow up in the little dictator's face.
Once again, if past performance dictated future growth we'd all be stock market millionaires. Any proposal with delinkage where the players only partake in the upside of revenue growth with no risk of the downsides is a no-go. The fact the players continually stick to that premise is the reason I currently favour the owners proposal and feel they have negotiated in good faith.
Once again, if past performance dictated future growth we'd all be stock market millionaires. Any proposal with delinkage where the players only partake in the upside of revenue growth with no risk of the downsides is a no-go. The fact the players continually stick to that premise is the reason I currently favour the owners proposal and feel they have negotiated in good faith.
As stated in another thread, is there a mechanism other than linkage that could protect the owners from a downturn while meeting the players' request to be kept whole?
