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
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.

24% rollback

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-09-2004, 06:14 PM
  #26
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeytown9321
At the very least its a $316 million concession. If you believe the owners payroll figures of $1.5 billion, its a $360 million concession.
Keep in mind the rollback would be on existing contracts only - quite a few players are still unsigned and wouldn't be subject to it ... I'd guess (and this is a total guess) that this is probably a $200-250 million concession for this year and probably a $100-150 million concession in 05-06. Remember as well that this season will be a half-season if it happens so those numbers will be pro-rated.

But it's still a very, very significant concession ... coupled with a decent luxury tax IMO this is more than workable.

MS is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:14 PM
  #27
TonySCV
Moderator
Two Timer!
 
TonySCV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,220
vCash: 500
Bob: 24% rollback
Gary: linkage from salary to revenues
Bob: you can have your linkage, but no rollback
Gary: deal

The only guess is how many weeks it's going to take to get to this inevitable resolution.

TonySCV is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:15 PM
  #28
Benji Frank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwisshockeyAcademy
It will be of no interest to the owners unless there is much more thrown in with it. A rollback addresses next to none of the issues long term.
Combined with a solid luxury tax, it gives them their fix now and a few years to really market themselves to the point where maybe they could offer significant revenue sharing & a higher cap that the players would be content to be a part of....

Benji Frank is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:15 PM
  #29
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,914
vCash: 500
*sigh*. Payroll is not 1.5 billion. It's far less than that, it's slightly over a billion. The 1.5 billion figure is *player costs*, not payroll. Per diems, travel, insurance....

No math majors here obviously. Sportsnet and vanlady comes up with $500 milllion is 24% of 1.5 billion. The real number is around $280 million.

Is it enough? It's a couple of years of breaking even, instead of losing. I'd say no.

But at least it does show the PA is finally starting to believe.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:17 PM
  #30
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,338
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
Doesn't really make a difference. The owners won't be interested in this, simply because it's a 1 time roll back. Doesn't appeal at all to the owners. 24% is surely much higher than the reported 10% that was rumored, however, it still will not appeal to the NHL and the owners.
:lol

Sure, the owners won't be satisfied until the players agree to a 110% rollback.

"Pay us to play"!

I don't care how temporary a solution this might be, if the owners were as flip about this TREMENDOUS concession (as one part of an overall package) as your reply was, the NHLPA's response should be to shove it.

Trottier is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:19 PM
  #31
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
A one time roll back does not appeal to the owners.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:22 PM
  #32
Doc Hollywood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
A one time roll back does not appeal to the owners.
Yes it can appeal to owners. The ball is in their court now. They can prevent salaries from escalating. It is in the owners hands. If they want to increase salaries then it is their fault.

Doc Hollywood is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:23 PM
  #33
porknbeans
Registered User
 
porknbeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,741
vCash: 500
holy crap.

God you're comments are ridiculous.

The rollback on salaries help set back the wage market for the players. Its only the owners who can **** this up... so why can they not be satisfied, with salaries going back under the level the owners want them at? As you have seen the last 2 years, the old CBA was FREAKING GREAT and the owners contained spending so much that the average salary rose less than 25K over that span.

The players have given enough. No more.

porknbeans is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:23 PM
  #34
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood
Yes it can appeal to owners. The ball is in their court now. They can prevent salaries from escalating. It is in the owners hands. If they want to increase salaries then it is their fault.
Same as 1994, and we all know how that turned out.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:24 PM
  #35
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaredsensfan
God you're comments are ridiculous.

The rollback on salaries help set back the wage market for the players. Its only the owners who can **** this up... so why can they not be satisfied, with salaries going back under the level the owners want them at? As you have seen the last 2 years, the old CBA was FREAKING GREAT and the owners contained spending so much that the average salary rose less than 25K over that span.

The players have given enough. No more.
They contained spending because the old CBA deal was expiring. That's why.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:24 PM
  #36
Potatoe1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 764
vCash: 500
I'm an "owners guy" but if the owners refuse to negotiate this proposal they have clearly lost their minds.

24% roll back, 75% Luxery Tax, and several other concessions.....

That is one hell of an offer.

Nice job players

Potatoe1 is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:25 PM
  #37
Doc Hollywood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
Same as 1994, and we all know how that turned out.
It is their fault then. If it happens again I have no sympathy. They can control what they do.

Doc Hollywood is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:25 PM
  #38
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood
Yes it can appeal to owners. The ball is in their court now. They can prevent salaries from escalating. It is in the owners hands. If they want to increase salaries then it is their fault.
By rewinding the clock to 2001 or 2002? That's hardly enough. Owners and GM's have been trying to keep salaries from escalating for years, without success.

There needs to be fundamental systemic changes like blowing up arbitration before preventing salary escalation is possible.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:26 PM
  #39
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood
It is their fault then. If it happens again I have no sympathy. They can control what they do.
I have absolutely no sympathy right now for the owners. So I completely agree with you on that. However, they have displayed that they can't control what they do. That's what Bettman wants fixed, in the form of a cap.

I'm in the middle. I don't agree with either side.

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:27 PM
  #40
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe
I'm an "owners guy" but if the owners refuse to negotiate this proposal they have clearly lost their minds.

24% roll back, 75% Luxery Tax, and several other concessions.....

That is one hell of an offer.

Nice job players

If that is indeed the proposal the NHLPA made... Im with you.

two out of three* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:27 PM
  #41
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 13,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canada
Same as 1994, and we all know how that turned out.
If the luxury tax is as reported, there's no way in hell salaries would continue to rise past their current point. So it isn't the same is 1994. Salaries will go down, it's just a matter of how much.

MS is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:28 PM
  #42
vanlady
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 810
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PecaFan
*sigh*. Payroll is not 1.5 billion. It's far less than that, it's slightly over a billion. The 1.5 billion figure is *player costs*, not payroll. Per diems, travel, insurance....

No math majors here obviously. Sportsnet and vanlady comes up with $500 milllion is 24% of 1.5 billion. The real number is around $280 million.

Is it enough? It's a couple of years of breaking even, instead of losing. I'd say no.

But at least it does show the PA is finally starting to believe.
My guess is the 24% rollback is only one of the concessions but the largest. My guess is when we see the proposal the owners are going to get more than the rollback. In labor terms this kind of give back is huge.

vanlady is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:32 PM
  #43
Malakhov
Registered User
 
Malakhov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Malakhov
Latest news according to TQS here (french station in Montreal):

Rollback of 24%
Luxury tax for teams over 45 millions
Salary cap for new players, not for the players already established in the league so in a few years when all the big players are retired, the salary cap will be in place

If the owners don't agree to this, screw them. They're supposed to talk again tonight.

Malakhov is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:33 PM
  #44
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malakhov
Latest news according to TQS here (french station in Montreal):

Rollback of 24%
Luxury tax for teams over 45 millions
New salary cap for new players, not for the players already established in the league so in a few years when all the big players are retired, the salary cap will be in place

If the owners don't agree to this, screw them. They're supposed to talk again tonight.
If that's true, there will be a season. Source?

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:34 PM
  #45
PecaFan
Registered User
 
PecaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ottawa (Go 'Nucks)
Posts: 8,914
vCash: 500
Oh my god. Now Sportsnet has adjusted their article to say $600 million.

They are truly idiots. $600 million is 24% of 2.5 billion dollars.
I know salaries are going up quickly, but not that quickly.

PecaFan is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:35 PM
  #46
Malakhov
Registered User
 
Malakhov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Martinique
Posts: 3,430
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Malakhov
Like I said it was on TQS about 2 minutes ago, that's why I just got here, been a while since I posted because I had lost hope.

They said they're gonna talk again tonight and TQS will have a special about this tonight.

I have hope once again!

Malakhov is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:35 PM
  #47
Lanny MacDonald*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tuvalu
Posts: 4,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potatoe
I'm an "owners guy" but if the owners refuse to negotiate this proposal they have clearly lost their minds.

24% roll back, 75% Luxery Tax, and several other concessions.....

That is one hell of an offer.

Nice job players
Lets wait and see what the whole package is before we say what a great offer it is. There has to be some control mechanisms in there and we need to know what those are.

Lanny MacDonald* is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:36 PM
  #48
Kid Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malakhov
Like I said it was on TQS about 2 minutes ago, that's why I just got here, been a while since I posted because I had lost hope.

They said they're gonna talk again tonight and TQS will have a special about this tonight.

I have hope once again!
TQS is?

Kid Canada is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:44 PM
  #49
Goldthorpe
Meditating Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,473
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Hollywood
Yes it can appeal to owners. The ball is in their court now. They can prevent salaries from escalating. It is in the owners hands. If they want to increase salaries then it is their fault.
The owners will never control themselves. No, let me say it another way: the owners cannot be expected to control themselves. It's not a question of will; the dices are crooked against them to begin with. The owners must compete between themselves, because they are different corporations in a capitalist market. They must compete [i]by definition[/b]. They actually can't chose to fix the salary of a specific player in a mutual aggreement; that would be against the law.

Any CBA will have to set some rules that temper the natural tendancy of salary rise. Linking salaries and revenues was one solution. Luxury taxes may be another, although I don't know if 45M is low enough (specially post-roleback). Maybe the owners will come back with a 40M luxury tax and we will see some hockey next February

Goldthorpe is offline  
Old
12-09-2004, 06:54 PM
  #50
Hockey_Nut99
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Luxury tax is a COMPLETE JOKE!!! Fix that and then there is a pretty good proposal..I would rather have a lower rollback and have a higher tax

Rich teams can't wait for the NHl to accept this deal it won't do anything to them

 
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 04:25 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.