HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 07:21 PM
  #51
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Math is not hard. Current salary expense is at $1.778BN (per capgeek) compared to projected HRR of $3.3BN (per league, inferred through Capgeek). That's an escrow rate of 9.96% @ 49% and 7.76% @ 50%. Last season's figures were $1.860BN (per capgeek) compared to estimated HRR of approximately $3.0BN. That's an escrow rate of 8.77% @ 57%.
Simply put the players create all the wealth that this system relies on. The NHL could exist without billionaire owners, but it simply could not exist without the players. They deserve the lion's share of the wealth they create.



Quote:
Incorrect, latest NHLPA proposal delinks salary from HRR, voiding any reasonable comparison. The "54 to 52 percent" claim is based upon extremely unreasonable annual increases in revenue for the league. While revenue is expected to largely stagnate over the next few years, the quoted percentages assume some 7-10% annual growth in HRR, which is simply not going to happen.
league revenue will stagnate because what? the NHL says so? I've said it before, i'll say it again. If I owned a pro-sports franchise, I'd do everything I can to show losses until it's time to sell. There are plenty of completely legal accounting tricks that can disguise revenue by large portions.

What is more important to gauge is franchise values, which have skyrocketed since the lockout. That is the true watermark for the health of a franchise.

Yes the system needs fixing, but it's not the players fault. It's years of forcing teams into terrible markets despite real hockey markets drooling for teams (how long did Winny have to beg?). The NHL's biggest problem is the lack of meaningful revenue sharing, not player salary.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:23 PM
  #52
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
False. With the exception of a strict bonus schedule for ELCs and an extreme injury bonus exemption for established players (used less than 5 times since the lockout) all NHL contracts are fully guaranteed. The bonuses in ELCs are also additional to the actual contract, and therefore should be considered to be fully guaranteed as the structure of the contract does not actually offer the payment of the bonuses except in certain cases of cap avoidance (in which case, the league pays the bonuses anyway which makes it a moot point).



Which means they're non-guaranteed. Just because you personally think that it's not a huge deal doesn't change whether or not the contracts are guaranteed. Stop making false claims, and start providing citations for your own references if you're going to demand them of others.
the couple dozen tertiary players on non-guaranteed deals doesn't change that fact that the vast majority of NBA players have guaranteed. They're not a meaningful sample of the league's rosters. NBA contracts are almost entirely guaranteed... Happy now?

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:28 PM
  #53
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Simply put the players create all the wealth that this system relies on. The NHL could exist without billionaire owners, but it simply could not exist without the players. They deserve the lion's share of the wealth they create.
theoretically it could exist without these players. certainly without a union. that's at least as plausible as a league run by...the State? We live in a capitalist society. if the teams are shareholder owned there is going to be every bit as much money grubbing going on. probably quite a bit more.

edit: the whole State run thing...yeah, there's no way in **** a local government even in MN is going to get approval in their budget from tax payers for spending $60m in payroll for a hockey team.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:40 PM
  #54
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
The owners all fell over themselves to get one last deal in before the CBA expired. Then decry how those very deals are bad for business. If they were truly crippling to a franchise, then WHY KEEP OFFERING THEM????

You negotiated a contract with those players, you pay those players what they're owed. It's ********* for them to come in here expecting the players to take a paycut. It's even more ********* for them to not make any meaningful changes to revenue sharing other than using the money saved from player salary cuts to go to that.

The league is trying to make their employees bail them out of their own damn messes. **** the owners, Including the man who signed 2 98 million dollar contracts in one day. I think you're business is doin pretty decent if you can swing that bud.
See, this is one of the issues being trumpeted by certain media members that drives me absolutely nuts.

Their completely erroneous statements that follow this line of thinking is just an embarrassment of fail.
Owners give out these massive contracts. Owners want to "fix" this by sticking it to the players. WHY ARE THE OWNERS GIVING OUT THESE CONTRACTS IF THEY ARE BAD???!

The reason why this is full of fail is that it completely eliminates the rules and laws that govern a point in time. We don't live our lives according the laws that were on the books in 1923, do we? We absolutely cannot live our lives according the laws that may or may not be on the books in 2023, either.

The reasons why the Suter/Parise/Kovie/Nash/Carter/Richards/Richards/Luongo ETCETERA were given out, is that they were ALLOWED under a mutually agreed upon set of rules. Both sides chose to exploit those rules.

Do you think that Weber and his agent have ZERO responsibility for that massive offer sheet that they signed? I about guarantee you that Weber's agent had almost EVERYTHING to do with architecting that. It is how the business works.

To fault Leipold for acting within the current governing rules to put together a COMPETITIVE team is just full of fail.

Rob Simpson, Joe Yerdon and a slew of other "journalists" have all made inflammatory statements using this erroneous line of thinking. It just aggravates me.

Simply put, if the speed limit is 70 today, I'll go 70 today. If the speed limit is 80 tomorrow, I'll go 80 tomorrow. I won't go 80 today, without expecting a violation...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:43 PM
  #55
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Simply put the players create all the wealth that this system relies on. The NHL could exist without billionaire owners, but it simply could not exist without the players. They deserve the lion's share of the wealth they create.
False, and a ridiculous false dichotomy. The players generally do not create the wealth, the hockey watching public creates the wealth. It comes not from the product put on the ice, but from the pockets of the fans who have decided to provide that money, or from the pockets of corporations who choose to purchase seat/marketing/advertising/merchandising for those fans. The "product" in hockey sales is the people filling the seats, not the players putting on a show. Furthermore, the percentage the players should receive of revenues is not remotely based upon their share of revenue generating activity, it's based upon large scale profit maximization strategies for both sides as well as various other economic, not "fairness" measures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
league revenue will stagnate because what? the NHL says so? I've said it before, i'll say it again. If I owned a pro-sports franchise, I'd do everything I can to show losses until it's time to sell. There are plenty of completely legal accounting tricks that can disguise revenue by large portions.
League revenues will stagnate because we're not brainless, unthinking automatons who belief the all-knowing hockey writer and his horrible statements about the big bad evil billionaires.

NHL revenues have risen for a variety of reasons over the past 6 years. In the first post-lockout years there was a significant increase across the board in disposable income amongst sporting fans. Spending on sporting events and viewing of sporting events in general throughout North America saw massive increases. Those increases stopped, but spending mostly held steady through the economic downturn, but now is tapering off. Another major revenue increase was due to the new 10 year, $2BN deal with NBC. Well, that deal's for 10 years, meaning there will not be another extra cent of revenue generation from that provider. NHL revenues are always calculated in US dollars. The Canadian dollar saw around a 20-25% increase in value as compared to the US dollar, this has resulted in dramatically rising revenues from Canadian franchises. The USD/CAD exchange has largely stabilized and will likely fall rather than continue to rise if there are further changes in the currency rates. Relocation of Atlanta to Winnipeg caused a major, and one time, increase in revenue due to low attendance in Atlanta and sellout attendance in Winnipeg. This will not be mirrored anywhere except in further one time relocations. With the Coyotes the only other team possible for relocation it's possible but not necessarily likely for 1 more time of this occurring. The only possible meaningful increase in HRR would be the upcoming HNIC deal being up for renewal soon. Covering only a quarter of the league, this could be meaningful, but will be substantially less effective than the NBC deal, and with CBC's bidding power limited by the CRTC, could even result in no increase at all.

HRR will rise at a rate slightly higher than inflation. With inflation extremely low at this point, short run expectations for HRR increases should be in the 1-3% range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
What is more important to gauge is franchise values, which have skyrocketed since the lockout. That is the true watermark for the health of a franchise.
Franchise values haven't exactly "skyrocketed." They've risen, but most franchises have at best matched their losses with increases in franchise values. While those values are important, they're only truly meaningful for those who intend to severe themselves from their investment at some point. The value of my TV doesn't mean a thing if I'm not going to sell it. The same is true of franchise values.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
Yes the system needs fixing, but it's not the players fault. It's years of forcing teams into terrible markets despite real hockey markets drooling for teams (how long did Winny have to beg?). The NHL's biggest problem is the lack of meaningful revenue sharing, not player salary.
Yeah, keep parroting that line, it only makes you look like you don't belong in the conversation. Winnipeg is still an extremely borderline success. If TNSE didn't own MTS Centre, have the richest people in Canada as owners (willing to suffer a loss) and a variety of other situational issues going for them, they would not be a viable market. They're certainly not some sort of guaranteed profit maker. While a Toronto2 team would likely be a success, that's a political issue and not a league decision. Houston doesn't have an owner. Seattle doesn't have an owner. KC is questionable. QC might work but only because the particular buyer owns a cable network. The team would likely see major annual losses, which the corporation would bear in exchange for profits on the broadcast side of the deal.

The teams losing money aren't exactly "bad markets." Minnesota, Chicago, Pittsburgh (until the past couple years), St. Louis, and others are all hockey markets that should post great profits. But yeah, let's keep pretending it's Dallas and Phoenix who are losing all the money, not any of those places that have history or like hockey in general.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:46 PM
  #56
Wild48
Our Savior
 
Wild48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth
Country: United States
Posts: 1,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
See, this is one of the issues being trumpeted by certain media members that drives me absolutely nuts.

Their completely erroneous statements that follow this line of thinking is just an embarrassment of fail.
Owners give out these massive contracts. Owners want to "fix" this by sticking it to the players. WHY ARE THE OWNERS GIVING OUT THESE CONTRACTS IF THEY ARE BAD???!

The reason why this is full of fail is that it completely eliminates the rules and laws that govern a point in time. We don't live our lives according the laws that were on the books in 1923, do we? We absolutely cannot live our lives according the laws that may or may not be on the books in 2023, either.

The reasons why the Suter/Parise/Kovie/Nash/Carter/Richards/Richards/Luongo ETCETERA were given out, is that they were ALLOWED under a mutually agreed upon set of rules. Both sides chose to exploit those rules.

Do you think that Weber and his agent have ZERO responsibility for that massive offer sheet that they signed? I about guarantee you that Weber's agent had almost EVERYTHING to do with architecting that. It is how the business works.

To fault Leipold for acting within the current governing rules to put together a COMPETITIVE team is just full of fail.

Rob Simpson, Joe Yerdon and a slew of other "journalists" have all made inflammatory statements using this erroneous line of thinking. It just aggravates me.

Simply put, if the speed limit is 70 today, I'll go 70 today. If the speed limit is 80 tomorrow, I'll go 80 tomorrow. I won't go 80 today, without expecting a violation...
So what you're saying is that these owners signed contracts they never intended to pay. That's ******* level right there.

If I sign a contract I have no intention of paying I end up paying it... yet the owners somehow think that doesn't apply to them.

Wild48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:46 PM
  #57
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
See, this is one of the issues being trumpeted by certain media members that drives me absolutely nuts.

Their completely erroneous statements that follow this line of thinking is just an embarrassment of fail.
Owners give out these massive contracts. Owners want to "fix" this by sticking it to the players. WHY ARE THE OWNERS GIVING OUT THESE CONTRACTS IF THEY ARE BAD???!

The reason why this is full of fail is that it completely eliminates the rules and laws that govern a point in time. We don't live our lives according the laws that were on the books in 1923, do we? We absolutely cannot live our lives according the laws that may or may not be on the books in 2023, either.

The reasons why the Suter/Parise/Kovie/Nash/Carter/Richards/Richards/Luongo ETCETERA were given out, is that they were ALLOWED under a mutually agreed upon set of rules. Both sides chose to exploit those rules.

Do you think that Weber and his agent have ZERO responsibility for that massive offer sheet that they signed? I about guarantee you that Weber's agent had almost EVERYTHING to do with architecting that. It is how the business works.

To fault Leipold for acting within the current governing rules to put together a COMPETITIVE team is just full of fail.

Rob Simpson, Joe Yerdon and a slew of other "journalists" have all made inflammatory statements using this erroneous line of thinking. It just aggravates me.

Simply put, if the speed limit is 70 today, I'll go 70 today. If the speed limit is 80 tomorrow, I'll go 80 tomorrow. I won't go 80 today, without expecting a violation...
Furthermore, the idea that those deals are somehow causing problems is humorous at best. A basic understanding of the strict 57% revenue split makes it pretty obvious that while those deals are disliked by the league for many reasons, they're certainly not a meaningful contributor to any financial issues the league has.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:47 PM
  #58
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
So what you're saying is that these owners signed contracts they never intended to pay. That's ******* level right there.

If I sign a contract I have no intention of paying I end up paying it... yet the owners somehow think that doesn't apply to them.
Seriously, where do people keep coming up with this claim? It's ridiculous. THAT'S NOT HOW THE STRICT REVENUE SPLIT WORKS. I've already spent far too many posts explaining why that logic is flawed and completely inaccurate. People at this point are beyond being helped.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 07:52 PM
  #59
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
really though, i want to know how a league that's able to pay players at that level can exist without owners.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 09:39 PM
  #60
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Seriously, where do people keep coming up with this claim? It's ridiculous. THAT'S NOT HOW THE STRICT REVENUE SPLIT WORKS. I've already spent far too many posts explaining why that logic is flawed and completely inaccurate. People at this point are beyond being helped.
how is it not what the owners are asking for, they are asking for a ESCROW rather then a rollback so they are asking the players to pay the money back either way. this is my biggest gripe with the owners proposal.

the existing contracts need to be honored, not rolled back or escrowd


Last edited by forthewild: 09-13-2012 at 10:05 PM.
forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:16 PM
  #61
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
how is it not what the owners are asking for, they are asking for a ESCROW rather then a rollback so they are asking the players to pay the money back either way. this is my biggest gripe with the owners proposal.

the existing contracts need to be honored, not rolled back or escrowd
Again...

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:19 PM
  #62
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
False.



Which means less than nothing without the establishment of expense growth, normalization of currency, or distribution of wealth. When those factors are taken into consideration, it's pretty flagrant of silly and ignorant such statements are.



False.



Minorly true, however, it's entirely irrelevant considering how "proposals" offered by the PA have exacerbated the issue rather than offered any chance of resolution. This is more an argument against the players than for them.



The players are overpaid and have provided "solutions" that take more money away from the owners. Considering NHL players are compensated at a rate that's between 16% and 26% higher than the industry norm, demands for paycuts are hardly unexpected.



There is no merit to this analogy as it does not compare at all to the NHL scenario.



"I'm fine with taking less percentage-wise in revenue as long as you don't pay me less." What sort of half-wit actually looks at that statement without facepalming? The players have one position "You must pay us more than we have previously ever made." Despite the ludicrous claims they've made in the press, they've continuous refused to reduce their percentage of HRR.



Oh god, you're serious aren't you? This would be hilarious if it weren't so depressingly deluded, ignorant, and ridiculously off-base. There aren't even words to describe the fact that someone would actually make this statement.

Here's the deal, teams will give NHLers 60% of revenues if they agree to non-guaranteed contracts like in other sports. Let's see how quickly the NHLPA agrees to that.

taking a reduced HRR going forward means that future contracts will be for less, while current deals won't be affected at all, so when Granlund signs his next deal he will have a different cap to work with that is based on what ever split they agree on. what the players are banking on is continued revenue growth so while their slice of the pie is smaller, it ends up being bigger then it currently is due to revenue growth.

Also that money that would be going to escrow isn't going back to the players, since teams will be losing money it will go to help those teams reach black, i would be shocked if any player received the escrow money back if they went along with the league proposal.

to your "players are overpaid" its an opinion, it has been shown that with revenue sharing every team can be in the black, while i do share the opinion that player share has to come down, its not a concrete fact. the owners have tried to paint this picture of woe, but what they aren't saying is that those huge markets that are responsible for the biggest revenues and are driving the cap up are the reason why poor teams are struggling, even if the HRR split is smaller those teams will continue to struggle because there is no solution in asking players to give a kick back.

Last CBA seems to have been written by a dumbass who didn't at all account for what would happen if the league revenues went up, so the cap just exploded and smaller markets suffered, a smaller share for players isn't an answer its a band aid, one relocation to Canada, continuing revenue increases and we'll be in the same spot. this is why the owners are not being taken seriously by the players, the limited owners who are allowed to negotiate seem to think that players giving money back is enough, its not we will have the same issue in x years when the new CBA runs out.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 10:22 PM
  #63
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post

againg how is asking players to pay that HRR reduction in escrow not a money grab? there is zero guarantee that those players see a dime of that money back.

from what i am getting aren't the owners going to use that escrow grab to fund the revenue sharing? you really think players will see it back if thats the case? yeah sure its not a money grab.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:41 PM
  #64
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
againg how is asking players to pay that HRR reduction in escrow not a money grab? there is zero guarantee that those players see a dime of that money back.

from what i am getting aren't the owners going to use that escrow grab to fund the revenue sharing? you really think players will see it back if thats the case? yeah sure its not a money grab.
/sigh...

Again, the amount refunded via escrow will be less at a 50/50 split than it was at a 57/43 split last season. Obviously no one here cared "they were signing deals they never meant to pay" last year when it was a greater "issue" that it would be this season.

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you people. You obviously have decided what you are going to decide, then are desperately making up "facts" to try support those delusional positions.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:42 PM
  #65
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
taking a reduced HRR going forward means that future contracts will be for less, while current deals won't be affected at all, so when Granlund signs his next deal he will have a different cap to work with that is based on what ever split they agree on. what the players are banking on is continued revenue growth so while their slice of the pie is smaller, it ends up being bigger then it currently is due to revenue growth.

Also that money that would be going to escrow isn't going back to the players, since teams will be losing money it will go to help those teams reach black, i would be shocked if any player received the escrow money back if they went along with the league proposal.

to your "players are overpaid" its an opinion, it has been shown that with revenue sharing every team can be in the black, while i do share the opinion that player share has to come down, its not a concrete fact. the owners have tried to paint this picture of woe, but what they aren't saying is that those huge markets that are responsible for the biggest revenues and are driving the cap up are the reason why poor teams are struggling, even if the HRR split is smaller those teams will continue to struggle because there is no solution in asking players to give a kick back.

Last CBA seems to have been written by a dumbass who didn't at all account for what would happen if the league revenues went up, so the cap just exploded and smaller markets suffered, a smaller share for players isn't an answer its a band aid, one relocation to Canada, continuing revenue increases and we'll be in the same spot. this is why the owners are not being taken seriously by the players, the limited owners who are allowed to negotiate seem to think that players giving money back is enough, its not we will have the same issue in x years when the new CBA runs out.
No, no, no, and no.

You clearly don't understand how escrow works. You clearly don't understand how revenue sharing works. You clearly don't understand what the word "proven" means. In fact, there's not a single meaningful factual statement in your entire post.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:54 PM
  #66
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild48 View Post
So what you're saying is that these owners signed contracts they never intended to pay. That's ******* level right there.

If I sign a contract I have no intention of paying I end up paying it... yet the owners somehow think that doesn't apply to them.
Not what I was saying at all...

I am bashing the people bashing the owners for setting up the contracts that are allowed under the current agreed upon code of rules.

I have been consistent that my biggest gripe with the owners is even the smallest desire to NOT pay the contracts that they legally agreed to with the players.

Outside of both parties willingly saying yes to a renegotiation, that contract stands and should.

Which is why I don't think an immediate roll back would fly. I don't think that a rollback via escrow will fly. My honest to god proposal would be to use the current HRR calculations, scale back the player share by 1% over the next 7 years to get it down to 50%.

My rough math is that the players would be being paid the same, with negligible increases each year, but eventually the balance of the equation shifts into the owners pockets more inline with a 50% split.

That would be the "easy" fix, but after digging into it, I think the system itself is more broken than either side is admitting (publicly).

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2012, 11:57 PM
  #67
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
My real desire for posting all of this is to drive forward and educate, not get into a point to point rebuttal of other posters.

I'd love to talk hypothesis on how to actually make a truly equitable deal for all parties involved.

Hell, if I had harder numbers, I'd maybe even package my HRR bucket concept up in a packet and send it to Daly. I have his email address...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 05:19 AM
  #68
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
No, no, no, and no.

You clearly don't understand how escrow works. You clearly don't understand how revenue sharing works. You clearly don't understand what the word "proven" means. In fact, there's not a single meaningful factual statement in your entire post.
http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/9/...inition-of-hrr

see according to this article, the escrow payments will be more then last year and the chance of getting that money back on the players end will be minimal. which is my whole ****ing point, players don't want to give back any real money.

i do get that escrow is static and is calculated throughout the year and is used to make sure both sides pony up their share, in this case tho, that is not the same, that escrow money will be used to help the league be profitable as a whole.

you cannot mean to tell me, players are going to get that money back this year when NHL claims its losing money? and they are asking for an IMMEDIATE fix via escrow, while its not a hard rollback, players will still make less on their deals. according to this article 17.5% reduction in players salaries. while it may be less due to escrow, the initial money players pay into escrow won't come back to them.

see this is the issue players have, they are ok with reducing their HRR over time but not at the cost of an immediate giveback.

NHL could come out and say, we want you guys to make the escrow payments as proposed, but what we are willing to do is, two years from now we'll start paying back pay you gave to escrow and lost in small batches, so each player gets back their share over 5 or so years.

basically what i'm saying is players are not up for giving back their contracts, which with the latest proposal would be going down by 17.5%, they dont want to do this for two reasons, one its their money like it or not these contracts were approved by the owners, and two it doesn't fix the economic issue NHL is having which is market inequality.

if NHL came out and said we'll do a loan type scenario, where the players give a % back to NHL which would later be refunded to them in structured payments while providing a fix for the smaller NHL markets maybe the players go with it. but as far as the PA sees it, the NHL owners have yet to make any inroads in what the PA believes is a necessity and that is a far better revenue sharing system.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 06:04 AM
  #69
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Additionally per Larry Brooks

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...D1XepsxEoyeRGL

in all the years players received at least 97.5% of their agreed to pay from the owners, what the owners are seeking now is far above that, this again is my issue, the escrow payements for the next few years are not going to go back to the players, they are going to be used to help struggling teams.

Squidz i get your point, however the proposal from the owners is a no go to the players, it might be escrow but players won't be seeing much if any of that back at the end of the year.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 06:56 AM
  #70
WildFinn*
Unity | We Are One
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,521
vCash: 500
I liked the idea of sharing travel expenses.

This is only fair because the league determines the schedule and who plays in what division.

Found this, there are big differences on the cost for each team.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/6...vel-miles-team

Could NHL run its own air fleet and hotels and try to get even atleast?

Do it together with one or more other sport leagues?


Last edited by WildFinn*: 09-14-2012 at 07:16 AM.
WildFinn* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 07:28 AM
  #71
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildFinn View Post
I liked the idea of sharing travel expenses.

This is only fair because the league determines the schedule and who plays in what division.

Found this, there are big differences on the cost for each team.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/6...vel-miles-team

Could NHL run its own air fleet and hotels and try to get even atleast?


Do it together with one or more other sport leagues?

kind of not fair to the players in the west coast, they can't just jump on the train for most of their conference games like their eastern counterparts can.

what would help is going to the proposed 4 division split

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 08:32 AM
  #72
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildFinn View Post
I liked the idea of sharing travel expenses.

This is only fair because the league determines the schedule and who plays in what division.

Found this, there are big differences on the cost for each team.

http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/6...vel-miles-team

Could NHL run its own air fleet and hotels and try to get even atleast?

Do it together with one or more other sport leagues?
I'll have to read that later, but that is sort of the basis for the math I'm thinking... Make the travel costs separate from other Direct Costs and deduct it from the over all pie before splitting the rest of it between the owners and the players.

That way, if fuel prices drop, that piece of the pie drops. If the league rents/buys a fleet of 15 757s and operates them like a business expense should be operated, then it would also greatly reduce Costs out...

/shrug

I have an IT background in Travel Management. Since I have the knowledge in that, I may be biased in focusing on that as a major part of the problem.

Edit; I'm also curious to see how making it a soft cap based on variables would affect each team... Except that would also require a shift in how a player contract works from a hard figure to a percentage concept... Hey, it works in sales... Commission based... etc.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 09:02 AM
  #73
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,697
vCash: 500
it's all a friggin mess. okay, so the richer teams owners don't want to push money from their pockets to float the poorer teams. Neither do the players. getting rid of the poorer teams would seem to hurt the players more than it would the richer owners...that's a whole lot of player jobs that no longer exist. it is in the players interests to contribute more. retraction is unlikely of course but IF that was the only way the league and board of governors saw to keep profits at levels where owners found it worthwhile to run teams it's going to cut jobs for players, and lower the salary for the rest as there will be more people vying for fewer jobs.

just shooting the ****.
wonder how smug biznasty would be if that came to pass. no way he'd have a job.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:00 AM
  #74
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
Additionally per Larry Brooks

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...D1XepsxEoyeRGL

in all the years players received at least 97.5% of their agreed to pay from the owners, what the owners are seeking now is far above that, this again is my issue, the escrow payements for the next few years are not going to go back to the players, they are going to be used to help struggling teams.

Squidz i get your point, however the proposal from the owners is a no go to the players, it might be escrow but players won't be seeing much if any of that back at the end of the year.
Larry Brooks and the NY Post are a generally inaccurate source (see the NJD stories for the past few years for perfect examples). In fact, he seems to quote the NFLPA on those escrow rates. An accurate look at actual escrow payments (albeit not for the most recent season) shows the amount clawed back in 2009-2010 was 9.41% and in 2008-2009 it was 12.88%. (source)

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:07 AM
  #75
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
http://www.defendingbigd.com/2012/9/...inition-of-hrr

see according to this article, the escrow payments will be more then last year and the chance of getting that money back on the players end will be minimal. which is my whole ****ing point, players don't want to give back any real money.

i do get that escrow is static and is calculated throughout the year and is used to make sure both sides pony up their share, in this case tho, that is not the same, that escrow money will be used to help the league be profitable as a whole.

you cannot mean to tell me, players are going to get that money back this year when NHL claims its losing money? and they are asking for an IMMEDIATE fix via escrow, while its not a hard rollback, players will still make less on their deals. according to this article 17.5% reduction in players salaries. while it may be less due to escrow, the initial money players pay into escrow won't come back to them.

see this is the issue players have, they are ok with reducing their HRR over time but not at the cost of an immediate giveback.

NHL could come out and say, we want you guys to make the escrow payments as proposed, but what we are willing to do is, two years from now we'll start paying back pay you gave to escrow and lost in small batches, so each player gets back their share over 5 or so years.
I will respond to this one last time:

I did the math. I showed you the math. The escrow clawback (as calculated against current CapGeek numbers at a 50/50 rate) would be less this season than it was in either of those two seasons where we have accurate escrow clawback rates from, as well as being less than against my estimated 2011-2012 rate (which was envelope math, as there's many other small factors in the calculation which were not considered).

The fact of the matter is, your entire underlying point is wrong. It has always been wrong. It will continue to be wrong. You need to just let it go because it is wrong. No matter how many times you attempt to continue to repeat it, your entire premise is inaccurate. Therefore all the subsequent things you've decided based upon that are wrong, because the "facts" you used to come to that conclusion aren't facts at all. They're just inaccuracies.

squidz* 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 11:21 PM.

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.