50-50 split, with contracts being honored 100%. You're right Leesmith, seems fair to me.
It's funny that guys like Leopold and Jacobs are the leading pro-lockout owners. It's almost like they don't want to pay the ridiculous salaries they agreed to give guys like Suter, Parise, and Lucic.
__________________
Truth should never get in the way of a good persecution complex.
Something is not making sense here, and I'm too tired and angry to figure it out right now,(about that 3rd proposal) because it does sound like there should be a deal close to being done if is real.
50-50 split, with contracts being honored 100%. You're right Leesmith, seems fair to me.
It's funny that guys like Leopold and Jacobs are the leading pro-lockout owners. It's almost like they don't want to pay the ridiculous salaries they agreed to give guys like Suter, Parise, and Lucic.
I'll speculate without facts.
50/50 split with contracts being honored wouldn't seem to be a sticking point even for the NHL. There has to be something else absurd in there...UFA after the entry-level contract expires, or buyout percentage going from 67% to 100%, or qualifying offers going from 110% to 250%, or something. Maybe all of the above.
For that kind of reaction to come from the league that quickly would seem to indicate that something is seriously wrong outside of that innocent, "What? It's 50-50, isn't it?" facade from the PA.
I personally believe that Craig Leipold and the Wild should be forced to honor those ridiculous contracts he agreed to this summer.
I think after the way he screwed Nashville over while he owned the team, he should have to send Suter back for nothing while paying the balance of the contract.
I think (guess) the problem with the 50/50 & honoring 100% of contracts is that 50% doesn't leave enough to cover other expenses and provide for increased revenue sharing and still let all owners be profitable. I think the players have to give something or this is going to be a long one.
Here's what the NHL says is the problem with option #3. Take it for what it's worth.
Quote:
In the third proposal, Fehr claimed the Union estimates the players would be losing approximately 13 percent of their salaries under the immediate 50-50 split the League proposed Tuesday, so the proposal the Union made was to segregate that 13 percent, have the owners pay it in full, and put a 50-50 split on the remaining 87 percent of contracts already signed and on future contracts.
"The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players' Association earlier today is being misrepresented," Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said in a statement. "It is not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely a 56- to 57-percent deal in Year One and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement.
"The proposal contemplates paying the players approximately $650 million outside of the players' share," he continued. "In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say '50-50,' when in reality it is not. The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did."
So once 10 to 11 games are cancelled, the players lose 13% of their salary anyway. Of course that's just one year but...
So I ran some numbers- according to Cap Geek the total committed cap payroll (so far) is about 1.8 billion which is 50% of 3.6 billion. If I remember correctly last year's rev was 3.3. Add in a 5% increase and you are at 3.495 so to honor all existing contracts it is only about a 100 million difference. Split the difference and it seems to work.
The problem with that is that it only "solves" the owners problem for one year and it doesn't really solve them, it just keeps them the same.
To me for this to work, it has to be done over time by holding the cap constant for say three years and then raising it by say 2 million a year for the next 3. Don't know if that math works exactly but the concept seems like it could work. Force the owners to live within the cap by changing the CBA to say what you pay in a year is the cap hit and force players to either sign within the constraints of the CBA or go to the KHL.
Ultimately the end result would be a decoupling of the cap and HRR. I'm with blah on this - it is insane to guarantee the players a share of the pie, especially more than half.
Guess the the chance to see the Oklahoma Barons with the young Oilers play the Texas Stars is looking more attractive by the day.
I understand that the "50/50, but honor existing contracts" was disingenuous, but I also believe that the owners should not get relief from the contracts offered and signed by them. For me, a contract is a binding agreement. Friedman proposes a solution that I believe is equitable (or at least provided the basis for an equitable deal).
I understand that the "50/50, but honor existing contracts" was disingenuous, but I also believe that the owners should not get relief from the contracts offered and signed by them. For me, a contract is a binding agreement. Friedman proposes a solution that I believe is equitable (or at least provided the basis for an equitable deal).
Maybe they should look at a hard cap/soft cap situation. 50% soft cap, 57% hard. Every dollar spent above 50% is equally put into revenue sharing. Kind of like that luxury cap in baseball. There are some issues with how revenue sharing would work as well as the potential competitive in balance, but it protects the cap floor for less stable teams and hopefully increases the revenue sharing dollars to help those teams. But those are more owner issues.
It protects existing contracts and puts a squeeze on some of these owners that bought huge contracts this year (/cough Wild cough) that really aren't large market owners.
Maybe they should look at a hard cap/soft cap situation. 50% soft cap, 57% hard. Every dollar spent above 50% is equally put into revenue sharing. Kind of like that luxury cap in baseball. There are some issues with how revenue sharing would work as well as the potential competitive in balance, but it protects the cap floor for less stable teams and hopefully increases the revenue sharing dollars to help those teams. But those are more owner issues.
It protects existing contracts and puts a squeeze on some of these owners that bought huge contracts this year (/cough Wild cough) that really aren't large market owners.
You and Friedman clearly demonstrate that there are some creative ways out of this impass, if only those responsible for finding agreement were willing to work past ego, amimosity, and greed.
You and Friedman clearly demonstrate that there are some creative ways out of this impass, if only those responsible for finding agreement were willing to work past ego, amimosity, and greed.
Yeah, I see no reason to screw players out of contracts that owners have already given. At the same time, with guaranteed contracts I think the players need to give up larger concessions in other areas.
I've thought of a couple more idea, but I don't think the owners will go along with them. Having said that they are probably far more tolerable than what the NHLPA is proposing.
Both sides keep proposing what they know won't work. There is no concept of a neutral party, Bettman is bought and paid for by the owners, Fehr from the players. Both parties are trying to win big.
Here's the fullest explanation of Option 3 that I've seen (from Tim Wharnsby of CBC.com):
Takes the players' share to 50/50 immediately.
Contracts that were signed before the lockout are valued for both share and cap purposes at 87 per cent of the contract's cash and cap value in any year these deals are in force.*This is because the 50 per cent, once benefits are accounted for, represents a 13 per cent cut in total player pay.*This 13 per cent does not count towards share or club salary cap.
This is done to protect players who signed long-term deals.
It says that players will accept 50 per cent for new contracts, but the owners must live by their word for past agreements.
Over time, these older deals will wind down. By year 5 the majority of the current contracts will be out of the system and the share will reach 50 per cent.
The owners would be assured of $750-million in savings.
Both sides keep proposing what they know won't work.
Well said. Nuts and bolts of why this impasse is so damnable frustrating.
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
Here's Lyle Richardson, Spector, on where we stand:
Yes, there’s plenty of gloom in the press and the blogosphere over this latest breakdown in talks, but*despite the rhetoric from both sides right now,*the fact they’re talking a 50-50 split in HRR (the main sticking point in these talks) is a sign of real progress.
Think about it: in July the NHL tabled an insulting offer where the players would get 43 percent of HRR. The players counter-offered with a short term CBA whereby their share of HRR didn’t go below 54% and would “snap back” to 57% if revenues were higher than anticipated, and never really moved much off that in their next proposal. The league offer up 46% several weeks ago, then a 50-50 split this week. The PA, for the first time, is now also proposing a 50-50 split.
They’re technically on the same page now in terms of division of HRR, with the question now being how they reach it to mutual satisfaction, where the players aren’t getting hit too hard by the escrow clawbacks required to lower the revenue share to a 50-50 split.
The other issues Mirtle noted are important, and will have to be seriously negotiated before a deal can be implemented, but the division of HRR is the main issue. Sort that out, and everything else starts to fall into place. Despite all the “sad clown faces” yesterday, the two sides are actually closer now toward an agreement than they’ve ever been in these negotiations. It’s now a matter of how they get there, and how long it takes to do so.
OT: "To table" an issue has essentially opposite meanings in Brittish and American parliamentary jargon!
Last edited by pete goegan: 10-19-2012 at 10:27 AM.
70 contracts for 5 or more years; scads more at 4. And these are typically the big $ contracts so to take 4-5 years to work out may not be to owners liking.
I say give the players 55-60% of HRR. All travel arrangements are their responsibility, and training services, medical, equipment (skate sharpening) is their own responsibility as well. Have fun guys
The players stand to lose roughly 350-450 million a season, less than they'd lose with a 45 game season. There won't be an 82 game season, but I think we'll be seeing hockey in 2012.
A step down approach to a 50/50 split seems to be the fairest option. I just hope the owners are willing to budge from their position.
I think after the way he screwed Nashville over while he owned the team, he should have to send Suter back for nothing while paying the balance of the contract.
***** (Leipold, not you)
I partly forgave him for that after his deposition helped keep Balsillie far, far away from NHL ownership. Partly.
__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards
Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
If the NHL and NHLPA agree to a 50-50 split BUT teams have to honor the big money long term deals they signed this past year, Nashville would be seriously getting hosed (money wise). Minnesota voluntarily made those two deals for Parise and Suter and Calgary knew exactly what they were doing when they gave Wideman $5 Million per. They should have to lump it...but Nashville was cornered into the deal they gave Weber and likely would have preferred not to make it.
That Weber deal will really strap them (how big a difference a few months would have made on signing him to a new deal).
The fact is, the big money teams that have the most sway over Bettman have the most to lose by a 50-50 split where existing contracts need to be honored. They are the ones sitting with the biggest money longest term contracts (for the most part). While the smaller market teams would be able to wheel and deal over the next few years getting players for much better value, the big money teams would have to wait for some of those big contracts to come off the books.
The players stand to lose roughly 350-450 million a season, less than they'd lose with a 45 game season. There won't be an 82 game season, but I think we'll be seeing hockey in 2012.
A step down approach to a 50/50 split seems to be the fairest option. I just hope the owners are willing to budge from their position.
I'm with you.
This will get done soon, we will have a half season or more this year. They are basically down to finding a settlement on the big contracts at this point. Bettman of course is a drama queen and stormed out of yesterday's meetings, but his masters aren't making money when they aren't selling tickets. The owner's will put the next offer on the table, the players will counter, and after a few more iterations, they'll all come to some agreement. Things will be settled by Nov 15th We'll have hockey by Thanksgiving at the latest imo.
