HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Larry Brooks continues his not-Goodenougf crusade against salary cap and PA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2014, 07:19 PM
  #1
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Larry Brooks continues his not-Goodenougf crusade against salary cap and PA

It's funny how this pro-Goodenow shill keeps repeating this crap. Maybe his hardline-agent sources asked him to write this? MOD

http://nypost.com/2014/06/28/incredu...his-attitude/?

Quote:
The insidious nature — or, on the other side, the genius — of a hard-cap system was on display Thursday night and Friday afternoon when the NHLPA voted against including the new Canadian television contract as revenue for purposes of calculating the 2014-15 cap.

The players, concerned about escrow that might have increased by 3 percent if the cap had gone to the projected $71 million, instead authorized a cap of $69 million that will create a significant squeeze on a significant number of the league’s most successful clubs and will cost players jobs on those teams and eliminate those teams as potential destinations when the market opens on Tuesday.

The cap pits player against player — for what’s good for one always costs the next guy money, always. In this case, it was players without contracts for next season against those with contracts.

Despite the urging of executive director Don Fehr, the membership could not and did not see the value in getting as much money in the system as possible and instead went with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Narrow interests won.
So because the cap was raised "too little", somehow it's players vs. players? When will someone ask Brooks to explain how raising the cap and increasing the escrow doesn't pit player against player?

Does Brooks even understand the cap system in the first place? Players will get exactly the same money, 50% of the HRR no matter what the cap is, only the size of escrow payments changes.

We all know Brooks is a dinosaur who will be out sooner or later and nobody has ever taken him seriously. Still, it's kinda funny how these PA shills (like Strachan who fortunately is out of business) turn against their own just because of their own agenda.


Last edited by Fugu: 06-28-2014 at 07:25 PM. Reason: let's not name names...
Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2014, 07:29 PM
  #2
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Hi, Pepper.

He's right that constricting the pool of money available for next year leaves more of that 50% of HRR for players who already have contracts.

If the cap were higher, it would rearrange how that 50% is shared.


What I find interesting is that the players chose to not include that TV money that was speculated to push the cap to a higher level.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2014, 09:23 PM
  #3
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,041
vCash: 500
This tells me all I need to know.
Quote:
Despite the urging of executive director Don Fehr, the membership could not and did not see the value in getting as much money in the system as possible and instead went with the penny-wise, pound-foolish approach. Narrow interests won.
They didn't listen to the guy they hired to get them the best deal possible. Not a very bright move if you ask me. Fehr is probably the best at his game there is.

tsanuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2014, 10:43 PM
  #4
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
This tells me all I need to know.

They didn't listen to the guy they hired to get them the best deal possible. Not a very bright move if you ask me. Fehr is probably the best at his game there is.

Agreed. This is the first time since Saskin told them not use the max inflator for the following season HRR. They too were worried about escrow, but as a group, they should pick the conservative route and stick with it or the inflator route. That way each year's FA class is sharing the pain in the same way. Personally I'm not sure why they wouldn't put the maximum amount of money into the system and then deal with escrow as it comes up. In most seasons, growth has been relatively strong.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:23 AM
  #5
frozenrubber
Registered User
 
frozenrubber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Agreed. This is the first time since Saskin told them not use the max inflator for the following season HRR. They too were worried about escrow, but as a group, they should pick the conservative route and stick with it or the inflator route. That way each year's FA class is sharing the pain in the same way. Personally I'm not sure why they wouldn't put the maximum amount of money into the system and then deal with escrow as it comes up. In most seasons, growth has been relatively strong.
Bingo.

The NHLPA needs to make a longterm decision on exercising inflators or not. Oscillating between triggering it, not utilizing it, or in this case, splitting the difference is terrible management style. Since Fehr lost this battle, I hope he recommends to the PA to at least stick w/ their decision as precedent for all future years.

While on paper this helps the majority of the PA w/ a contract, it shrinks the funds available for this year's RFA/UFAs, plus will lead to 15+ players getting moved/traded because of cap considerations. Having my family moved unexpectedly just because of a possible marginal larger escrow exposure is incredibly shortsighted.

frozenrubber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 02:24 AM
  #6
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,319
vCash: 500
According to another report, the players effectively took half of the extra TV dollars in cap this season. So, here's a contrarian viewpoint:

The players choose to spread out the one-time large bump in TV revenue across two seasons of free agents. Rather then have one batch of free agents reap the primary benefits of the one-time event.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 02:35 AM
  #7
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
According to another report, the players effectively took half of the extra TV dollars in cap this season. So, here's a contrarian viewpoint:

The players choose to spread out the one-time large bump in TV revenue across two seasons of free agents. Rather then have one batch of free agents reap the primary benefits of the one-time event.

Why do you think Fehr would have advised them to take it all in one year?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 02:47 AM
  #8
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Why do you think Fehr would have advised them to take it all in one year?
No idea. Can't wait for more info on precisely what took place to leak out.

Perhaps the players finally figured out that "getting more money into the system" doesn't really get more money into the system after escrow's all said and done.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 04:42 AM
  #9
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Hi, Pepper.
Hi Fugu!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
He's right that constricting the pool of money available for next year leaves more of that 50% of HRR for players who already have contracts.
But does that really matter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
If the cap were higher, it would rearrange how that 50% is shared.
Yes, that's the nature of escrow. I guess the question is should players with old contract finance the inflated new contracts?

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 09:01 AM
  #10
Cirris
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Crackport
Country: United States
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to Cirris
"will cost players jobs"

What utter BS. As soon as I saw that i stopped reading. Cause I knew he was just spewing out regurgitated union talking points to whine about his millionaire players not getting their way.

Cirris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 11:59 AM
  #11
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
Yes, that's the nature of escrow. I guess the question is should players with old contract finance the inflated new contracts?
That's what I meant by them picking to always go the route of using the escalator once they go that route, because today's players with contracts will be the guys without contracts in 2, 3, 5+ yrs from now. Or they stay conservative, so that each year's class has the same treatment-- new guys get more of the money, or the older contracts keep. Going back and forth only hurts the FA class in the years where they switch from one track to the other.

Now, I can see that if they took all the money this year, GMs hand out massive contracts... which are far in excess of 50% of HRR in total... it just means that they give all that money back to the owners. Knowing the actual HRR figures and comparing against the salary commitments would help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirris View Post
"will cost players jobs"

What utter BS. As soon as I saw that i stopped reading. Cause I knew he was just spewing out regurgitated union talking points to whine about his millionaire players not getting their way.

I never get this type of talk with a fixed system. There are only 30 teams, and roster sizes are relatively fixed, including injury replacements where there is some flux. The more teams spend on injury replacements, the more that 50% of HRR gets spread out (say 750 players vs 780, but the replacements are usually cheaper, entry level guys). The people who "lose" their jobs are overpriced (relative to teams' needs) veterans for the most part.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:09 PM
  #12
Burke the Legend
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,695
vCash: 2615
Yeah guys like Brian Gionta or Mike Cammalleri will probably get less money on their new contract than otherwise if there was more cap space, someone like Mike Weaver too.

Burke the Legend is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:15 PM
  #13
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirris View Post
"will cost players jobs"

What utter BS. As soon as I saw that i stopped reading. Cause I knew he was just spewing out regurgitated union talking points to whine about his millionaire players not getting their way.
This would be interesting if that was what he said. In reality, Brooks was pointing out that the situation costs players jobs on more successful teams, who are typically up against the Cap. He didn't say it would cost the players jobs overall. There's an inevitable reshuffling that will be taking place among the players around the league due to the decision. That's okay, because it really is one of the intended consequences.

This whole thing about "Brooks' crusade against salary cap" etc is absurd. Yes, Brooks really doesn't like the salary cap, but as someone who's been reading him for probably close to 20 years, I think it's more that he's against employee restriction overall. At this point in his career, his job is not just to report news, but to comment on the game. His articles are allowed to be half news/half editorializing. He's a proponent of the good unions do and a critic of unions when they don't do a good job looking out for their constituencies. If he was writing about education, he would have spent the last 8 years railing against Bloomberg and the 8 years before that railing against Giuliani. It's just who he is. I find nothing to be critical of in his stance, whether I agree with him or not.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:19 PM
  #14
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
@ Tawnos.

I understand why he doesn't like cap systems. It's an inefficient economic system, overall.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:21 PM
  #15
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
Judging by comments made by players, it's obvious that some of them really dislike escrow so I guess it would make sense to try to keep it down if you already are under contract. Players without contracts will feel a little bit of squeeze in some markets, but those are a minority.

Brooks is being overly melodramatic because Rangers not only will be cap squeezed but also have (by their own design) a big part of their team up for new contracts and a lot of those players had good years.


Last edited by Freudian: 06-29-2014 at 12:46 PM.
Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:39 PM
  #16
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
@ Tawnos.

I understand why he doesn't like cap systems. It's an inefficient economic system, overall.
I suspect he doesn't care that much about that aspect of it, though he'll definitely use it in his pontificating. More about player (aka employee) freedom.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 12:48 PM
  #17
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,319
vCash: 500
With the recent new compliance buy-outs we're up to nearly $36m this season coming out of the player share of HRR for them.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2014, 01:05 PM
  #18
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,622
vCash: 500
since Brooks is a Rangers shill you'd think he'd be happy with the cap protecting the Rangers from themselves.

__________________
I am encountering more and more of my own readers that I don't even like, nitwits who glom onto something superficial in the book and misunderstand its underlying message- Bill James

Last edited by YWGinYYZ: 06-29-2014 at 01:11 PM. Reason: ...
Hasbro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2014, 02:41 PM
  #19
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,256
vCash: 500
Why would players dislike the escrow amount...they always get it all back after the revenues are reached...?

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2014, 03:42 PM
  #20
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLONG7 View Post
Why would players dislike the escrow amount...they always get it all back after the revenues are reached...?

There have been 2-3 years, iirc, where the players got all the escrowed money back, and then some as the NHL had to top off what they owed. Usually, they do a fairly decent job of estimating how much more the players are getting paid against how much they will get to keep (their total share of HRR).

That money is money that's cut right from the contracted amount. If a player is slated to earn $5 MM, and amount the players owe the NHL is 10% of the total share (e.g., they were overpaid by 10%), then our example player gives up $500,000 that I presume he'd rather keep.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2014, 04:10 PM
  #21
RxPens
Registered User
 
RxPens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 62
vCash: 500
I believe there is a reason why so many of this year's FA class took one-year deals. No so much to 'double dip' on the bonus money, as the majority of one year deals were at or below market value, but to take advantage of the extra large bump in cap money next year. This coming season is going to be the last part of the 'cap correction' that took place after the lockout. Next season we will see full growth money go towards a higher cap in addition the other 1/2 of the TV contract. Just a thought..

RxPens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2014, 04:17 PM
  #22
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RxPens View Post
I believe there is a reason why so many of this year's FA class took one-year deals. No so much to 'double dip' on the bonus money, as the majority of one year deals were at or below market value, but to take advantage of the extra large bump in cap money next year. This coming season is going to be the last part of the 'cap correction' that took place after the lockout. Next season we will see full growth money go towards a higher cap in addition the other 1/2 of the TV contract. Just a thought..

Yes, definitely a possibility for several of them, especially Ehrhoff, who had the benefit as well of buy-out money to tide him over. With the compliance buy-outs being an option this off-season, it was certainly more likely that some teams would use it than ordinary buy-outs.

So what you're saying is that next year's frenzy will make this one look reasonable?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:14 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.