HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2012, 11:25 AM
  #76
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
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.
Without doing any actual math and calculations on it, I can't imagine it would be less expensive for the league to own their own fleet of aircraft. While charter outfits are certainly making a profit off of the NHL's use of their aircraft, those aircraft aren't just sitting around looking pretty when they're not flying the team somewhere. The charter outfits might not have the planes rented out 100% of the time, but the NHL's use of the aircraft in question is likely less than 50% of the total hours logged on those planes per anum. As for actual planes, unless they plan to operate an airline, I'd suspect we'd see aircraft more in the size of a CRJ than a 757. The range on the 757 is nicer, but I can't imagine it's cost effective to fly a 75% empty plane.

As for other travel arrangements and efficiency, the league owning hotels could be interesting. What I think would be a very interesting study is the possibility of the league actually opening (or purchasing an existing) chain of hotels and operating them. They could use them for visiting hockey teams, but more importantly could advertise them to the public "SLEEP WHERE THE PLAYERS SLEEP. NHL HOTELS, WHERE YOU MIGHT JUST RUN INTO [INSERT MARKETABLE PLAYER HERE]." I imagine you were more meaning them looking at purchasing a smaller property, and using it only internally though.

My biggest suggestion to the league (which the New England teams would fight to their death) would simply be to organize a league office for conducting travel arrangements. Centralizing it into the league would likely allow for some direct cost savings (if only because 10-20 centralized people could likely handle the whole department rather than 30-60 people spread out amongst the 30 teams, although there's other opportunities as well). Furthermore, with it being a league expense, there's incentive for the league to minimize their expenses across the board. That way, the scheduling department might take a more serious look at some of the ridiculous, inefficient travel they put out there some times. I know they do a little of that, but we still end up with some pretty dumb schedules on occasion.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:35 AM
  #77
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
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.

so the players are wrong in their escrow claw back calculations and you are right?

BTW my underlying point is PLAYERS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN OFFER THAT HAS THEM GIVE MONEY BACK, WHICH IN THIS LAST NHL PROPOSAL IS 17.5% OF THEIR CONTRACT. this is their ****ing math dude, call up FEHR and tell him he's wrong and its a great deal for both the players and the league. THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AND ARE NOT DISPUTED BY NHL.

Just because you calculated something means jack ****, its not like you have an accounting department with people who have advanced degrees and access to numbers the capgeek does not to get the full image at what the players have to pay out....


from Russo's article

Quote:
Now, in the previous CBA, players typically got some of that money back. In fact, in a few weeks, players will get more than 8 percent of their withheld escrow back from last season back. In this new proposal, it would be pretty much guaranteed that the players wouldn’t get the majority of money put into escrow back in the first three years. In Years 4-6 of the NHL proposal, it would essentially bounce back to the current escrow rules – if revenue growth outpaced projections and teams didn’t largely spend to the cap, the players could get most or all of their escrow money back.
just because the NUMBERS you arrived at are the same doesn't mean the IMPACT ON THE PAY is, where as before players got most of their escrow back, this time THEY WONT FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS, so paying 8.what ever % in escrow and getting 7.what ever back at the end of the year IS BETTER then paying 7.what ever in escrow and getting 0.what ever back at the end of the year.

this is what the players are fighting against, at least ONE of the big issues they are having with the league.

thats the clawback they are facing, see they pay same or similar escrow rate but don't get it back, from that Brooks article, they got 97.5% at least back every year, so while players may have paid ~8% they always got majority of it back, this time IT WONT BE THE CASE.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:39 AM
  #78
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AND ARE NOT DISPUTED BY NHL.
Uhm...

This is the core of the dispute, actually. The numbers that the NHLPA throw around (and the media regurgitates) are disputed by the NHL. The NHL numbers are disputed by the PA.

/shrug

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:40 AM
  #79
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Without doing any actual math and calculations on it, I can't imagine it would be less expensive for the league to own their own fleet of aircraft. While charter outfits are certainly making a profit off of the NHL's use of their aircraft, those aircraft aren't just sitting around looking pretty when they're not flying the team somewhere. The charter outfits might not have the planes rented out 100% of the time, but the NHL's use of the aircraft in question is likely less than 50% of the total hours logged on those planes per anum. As for actual planes, unless they plan to operate an airline, I'd suspect we'd see aircraft more in the size of a CRJ than a 757. The range on the 757 is nicer, but I can't imagine it's cost effective to fly a 75% empty plane.

As for other travel arrangements and efficiency, the league owning hotels could be interesting. What I think would be a very interesting study is the possibility of the league actually opening (or purchasing an existing) chain of hotels and operating them. They could use them for visiting hockey teams, but more importantly could advertise them to the public "SLEEP WHERE THE PLAYERS SLEEP. NHL HOTELS, WHERE YOU MIGHT JUST RUN INTO [INSERT MARKETABLE PLAYER HERE]." I imagine you were more meaning them looking at purchasing a smaller property, and using it only internally though.

My biggest suggestion to the league (which the New England teams would fight to their death) would simply be to organize a league office for conducting travel arrangements. Centralizing it into the league would likely allow for some direct cost savings (if only because 10-20 centralized people could likely handle the whole department rather than 30-60 people spread out amongst the 30 teams, although there's other opportunities as well). Furthermore, with it being a league expense, there's incentive for the league to minimize their expenses across the board. That way, the scheduling department might take a more serious look at some of the ridiculous, inefficient travel they put out there some times. I know they do a little of that, but we still end up with some pretty dumb schedules on occasion.

this here would be terrible for players, its not like some of them don't have irrational enemies, oh hey look Sid the kid who just violated your team in GM 1 and 2 of SC playoffs is staying at XX hotel, you can run into him...

Partnerships tho would be a cool idea, like NHL+MLB partnering to get hotels since they share some of similar cities and don't really get into conflict with one another scheduling wise.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:41 AM
  #80
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
so the players are wrong in their escrow claw back calculations and you are right?

BTW my underlying point is PLAYERS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN OFFER THAT HAS THEM GIVE MONEY BACK, WHICH IN THIS LAST NHL PROPOSAL IS 17.5% OF THEIR CONTRACT. this is their ****ing math dude, call up FEHR and tell him he's wrong and its a great deal for both the players and the league. THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AND ARE NOT DISPUTED BY NHL.

Just because you calculated something means jack ****, its not like you have an accounting department with people who have advanced degrees and access to numbers the capgeek does not to get the full image at what the players have to pay out....


from Russo's article



just because the NUMBERS you arrived at are the same doesn't mean the IMPACT ON THE PAY is, where as before players got most of their escrow back, this time THEY WONT FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS, so paying 8.what ever % in escrow and getting 7.what ever back at the end of the year IS BETTER then paying 7.what ever in escrow and getting 0.what ever back at the end of the year.

this is what the players are fighting against, at least ONE of the big issues they are having with the league.
Honestly, do you know how to read? Because you've demonstrated pretty clearly the answer is no.

You clearly have no idea how escrow works or is calculated. You clearly (and Russo as well here, but he's always been ridiculously oblivious on this point) have absolutely no idea how escrow has resulted in the past. If you lack the basic math skills to follow along, that's your fault and not the fault of anyone else here. With current spending, according to CapGeek, compared to league projected HRR, escrow rates will be lower with a 50/50 split in 2012-2013 than they were in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. No matter how many gallons of kool-aid you drink, you can't change that math. Either accept it or remove yourself from the conversation as the inability to come to grips with it clearly demonstrates you lack any ability to contribute in any positive manner, ever.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:43 AM
  #81
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bozak911 View Post
Uhm...

This is the core of the dispute, actually. The numbers that the NHLPA throw around (and the media regurgitates) are disputed by the NHL. The NHL numbers are disputed by the PA.

/shrug

Last proposal tho is what the 17.5% contract reduction is based on, that the NHL hasn't disputed other then saying, if revenues go up you'll end up making more later

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:46 AM
  #82
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Honestly, do you know how to read? Because you've demonstrated pretty clearly the answer is no.

You clearly have no idea how escrow works or is calculated. You clearly (and Russo as well here, but he's always been ridiculously oblivious on this point) have absolutely no idea how escrow has resulted in the past. If you lack the basic math skills to follow along, that's your fault and not the fault of anyone else here. With current spending, according to CapGeek, compared to league projected HRR, escrow rates will be lower with a 50/50 split in 2012-2013 than they were in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. No matter how many gallons of kool-aid you drink, you can't change that math. Either accept it or remove yourself from the conversation as the inability to come to grips with it clearly demonstrates you lack any ability to contribute in any positive manner, ever.
squids did you miss that part where players paying the lower escrow number ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY BACK? more then Russo is saying that initially players won't get their escrow back at least not most of it, this is my point, you say i have numbers, but the accountants who did the math see that players won't be getting it back. it doesn't matter if they pay less then last year under the 50-50 deal, what matters is how much they stand to get back from escrow and right now for the first few years it won't be anything.

the NHL dropped the roll back idea in favor of escrow, but that money is going to go to teams not players while the cap adjusts and teams get to be able to stay under the cap. its not like HRR goes down to 50% and Minnesota Wild just operate above a hard cap with fairy dust.

Just if you read this one paragraph, i'm not saying your are clueless on how escrow works, i'll say right now you know more then i do, all i'm saying is because of needing to get cap to reflect the new share in HRR, there has to either be a rollback which won't be or escrow payments, and initially players won't be getting the same amount of money back as they did before if any. so even if your numbers show lower escrow rates, its not the same if the players are not getting that money back. i'd rather pay 10% escrow rate but get 7% back, then pay a 7% escrow rate and get 1% back.

again with NHL demanding a 8% reduction right away, that means old cap floor and ceiling no longer apply, teams need to comply with the cap.


Last edited by forthewild: 09-14-2012 at 11:58 AM.
forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:51 AM
  #83
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
Uhm...

This is the core of the dispute, actually. The numbers that the NHLPA throw around (and the media regurgitates) are disputed by the NHL. The NHL numbers are disputed by the PA.

/shrug
Kind of. The PA hasn't exactly been disputing the NHL numbers (in fact, they've generally used them themselves). The PA keeps doing "creative accounting" then sharing the outcome (while trying to hide the steps to reach those numbers) and claiming it's truth. I haven't seen an example of them actually saying "This number from the league is wrong" except for the always shaky 'this many teams are losing money.'

Using some made up words (to avoid excessive confusion and to make clear these are examples and not real figures), this is what has been happening:

NHL - Last years FLURB was $1.6BN.

NHLPA - Don't listen to the league's numbers, GLURP for the league as a whole as $2.9BN.

NHL - GLURP is not a useful figure until compared against, SLURM last year was a $2.0BN loss

NHLPA - Our GLURP figure proves that the league had record GRIGS!


They don't really typically dispute whether the numbers the other provides are accurate (except in the case where the PA were projecting explicit growth, then recalculating percentages off of those figures, trying to claim a stepping proposal based on revenue linkage, when their actual proposal was to eliminate linkage entirely). They just spout whatever figure they think most helps their case. However, the league is generally quoting actual current figures while the PA repeatedly "projects" future figures then adjusts other figures based upon that and reports relative changes based upon these ridiculous projections. Also, the PA keeps reporting figures to mean things that they actually don't. They still haven't figured out that Revenue != Profit.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:56 AM
  #84
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
squids did you miss that part where players paying the lower escrow number ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY BACK? more then Russo is saying that initially players won't get their escrow back at least not most of it, this is my point, you say i have numbers, but the accountants who did the math see that players won't be getting it back. it doesn't matter if they pay less then last year under the 50-50 deal, what matters is how much they stand to get back from escrow and right now for the first few years it won't be anything.

the NHL dropped the roll back idea in favor of escrow, but that money is going to go to teams not players while the cap adjusts and teams get cap complaint. its not like HRR goes down the 50% and Minnesota Wild just opperate above a hard cap with fairy dust.
Did you miss the part of how escrow works? The rates that I demonstrated and proved from 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are the clawback rate. That is to say, every figure I have provided is the amount of money the players did not receive back. Actual escrow payment rates have not been mentioned a single time by anyone other than you. Russo can claim that the players are "getting back their 8%" but that doesn't reflect the actual amount they paid in. If the players are receiving back 8%, it's because they paid far more in (if my estimates are accurate, about 16%). While I don't have hard figures for 2011-2012, if they had received back 8% in 2008-2009, they would have had to pay in 20%.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:56 AM
  #85
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Kind of.
Yeah. I was keeping it dumbed down, but you hit the nail on the head with the full explanation.

The numbers dispute is more of a "semantics" argument between the two sides. I'd be VERY curious to see the huge pile (70k pages??!) of financial data the teams released to the PA. I'm betting the PA did some due diligence on that, but then chose to stick their fingers in their ears and chant...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 11:59 AM
  #86
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
Yeah. I was keeping it dumbed down, but you hit the nail on the head with the full explanation.

The numbers dispute is more of a "semantics" argument between the two sides. I'd be VERY curious to see the huge pile (70k pages??!) of financial data the teams released to the PA. I'm betting the PA did some due diligence on that, but then chose to stick their fingers in their ears and chant...
I think 70k pages was just "the first set of data." I think it's pretty telling that despite the NHL "opening the books" (the NFL never actually did that with their dispute, or did they eventually?) the NHLPA has never directly attacked the claim that the league is losing money. To me, if the league weren't losing money, it would be in the players' best interest to make that public. Since they haven't, I have to assume it's true to the extent that reasonable financial tricks can't even change that figure.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 12:19 PM
  #87
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
If you think about it from a pure paper work monstrosity perspective, each HRR report is about 15 pages. Each game has to have an HRR report filed. Each event where a player is used has to have an HRR report filed. Each event where a team logo or the NHL logo has to have an HRR report filed.

So... yeah, I can see at least 70k of HRR reports alone for ONE season...

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:53 PM
  #88
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Did you miss the part of how escrow works? The rates that I demonstrated and proved from 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are the clawback rate. That is to say, every figure I have provided is the amount of money the players did not receive back. Actual escrow payment rates have not been mentioned a single time by anyone other than you. Russo can claim that the players are "getting back their 8%" but that doesn't reflect the actual amount they paid in. If the players are receiving back 8%, it's because they paid far more in (if my estimates are accurate, about 16%). While I don't have hard figures for 2011-2012, if they had received back 8% in 2008-2009, they would have had to pay in 20%.
i didn't, according to the larry brooks article i posted earlier he said the players have never received less then 97.5% of their contact, which means that at most they lost to escrow is 3.5% once the duce has settled

i'm not saying your numbers are wrong, i'm saying what the players are saying and that is under the NHL rule their actual money is going to be less initially, PA is proposing a system when the HRR reduction is less sudden and thus the effect of escrow would be lessened on the players.

if you think of it from the player perspective, if over the last 7 years you have always received at least 97.5% of your contracted amount and you do the math and the last proposal and you see that next year you are not going to get close to that its a no deal.

Thats what Brooks was talking about when he said if NHL limits the clawback to no more then 5% we get traction, i'm not saying you are wrong on your escrow rate, what i;m saying is what the final amount of contract players receive initially will be lower under the NHL proposal dude to the sudden decrease in cap.

the way i see it is, if the players are due 57% this year of the pay, and they have to drop to 49% in one year, then the revenue gap of 8% is going to be given back to owners no? so initially escrow will go to the owners while the HRR and the CAP adjust.

again not saying you got the wrong % just saying what players are saying is that the real $ amount is what the players don't like about this system, they could pay out the 8 or so% escrow and not get a dime back, which would mean they are geting 92% of their contract value this year, or 5.5% lower then even in the worse of the last 7 years.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 01:58 PM
  #89
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
isn't the whole numbers argument basically who needs to fix the losing teams problems, NHL says players, PA has said that rich teams do it.

iirc the gist of what the PA is saying is that NHL doesn't have a Revenue problem, (it makes plenty of it) it has a revenue sharing problem (that most teams can't keep up with the jonses and play in their system as is)

they used the whole, look how much money leafs, rangers, habs, fylers, wings make, the very top teams account for most of the revenue so its not an equal playing field to teams in other markets that can't generate that type of revenue but have to play in a cap with the other teams.

ideally both the owners and PA would say that they will both contribute to the solution and reflect that in their statement.

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 02:00 PM
  #90
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
also walsh just did garry a good one, according to IATA website cost of jet fuel is down (Garry said thats one of the reason operating expenses are up)

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 02:03 PM
  #91
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,412
vCash: 500
Squidz, how are you calculating escrow percentages and actual payrolls? Are you estimating HRR or do you have actual figures? I can't seem to make your numbers jive with anything I've been crunching all day.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:23 PM
  #92
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
also walsh just did garry a good one, according to IATA website cost of jet fuel is down (Garry said thats one of the reason operating expenses are up)
Seriously? Walsh is a friggin moron... When did he start from? January? If January of this year, then yes, Jet Fuel is slightly down. If you can call a 1.6% decrease from January a good thing... /facepalm

He needs to look at the historical trend since the last CBA was agreed upon...

05/31/2005 = $1.517 per gallon.

09/11/2012 = $3.257 per gallon.

There was a peak price in 06/2008 of over $4 a gallon.

Walsh... is... a... MORON.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:33 PM
  #93
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
also walsh just did garry a good one, according to IATA website cost of jet fuel is down (Garry said thats one of the reason operating expenses are up)
you're coming off looking pretty stupid, you know. c'mon, man, you're better than this.
know what? gas prices are down too. from last wednesday.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:41 PM
  #94
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
you're coming off looking pretty stupid, you know. c'mon, man, you're better than this.
know what? gas prices are down too. from last wednesday.
not well though out on my part, but they are technically down from 2008 tho right

forthewild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 03:52 PM
  #95
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
not well though out on my part, but they are technically down from 2008 tho right

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 05:07 PM
  #96
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
not well though out on my part, but they are technically down from 2008 tho right
Not exactly...

The national average in September of 2008 was $3.84
I drove by my local stations today and it was at $3.99...

Considering that the Annual Calculated Inflation rate is roughly equal to what it was in 2008 against baseline models...

If you use "Walsh logic", then yeah, gas prices are lower than they were this time in 2008...

See my point?


bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2012, 05:35 PM
  #97
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,197
vCash: 50
just read everything Walsh says or links with this in mind: in negotiating a new contract or filing for arbitration an agent will spin everything as hard as they possibly can. Say Gaborik has the highest goals per TOI in history...in minutes 4-7 of the second period of games when his team is behind. They'll use that as proof he's clutch or whatever.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 11:23 AM
  #98
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 Jarick View Post
Squidz, how are you calculating escrow percentages and actual payrolls? Are you estimating HRR or do you have actual figures? I can't seem to make your numbers jive with anything I've been crunching all day.
The 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 clawback rates were an attributed quote from a linked article, so they're right. What I was calculating for 2012-2013 was current (cap hit) spending versus $3.3BN in revenues (technically the estimate from the league is $3.27368BN [$62.2MM salary midpoint * 30 teams / 57% share]). The current salaries were from yesterday via CapGeek. Most teams were at or over 22 players (in fact, several were at 24) so I felt comfortable in using those as approximate final rosters. I then calculated how much those would need to be rolled back, and adjusted back to actual salary (that is to say, don't forget that earning 53% of HRR would be a clawback of 6% with a 50/50 split, not a clawback of 3%).

Last season was a bit different. I used a round $3.0BN for HRR because that's what I've seen reported by the league. I utilized CapGeek's archives, and included bonuses in the calculation (I believe that's what's required to translate CapGeek's numbers, but I'm not 100% certain this is the case and would make a huge difference). After those two calculations, it's the same logic for getting to the escrow rate. I'm not completely comfortable with this number because of the previously noted caveat. That's why I've since focused on the two confirmed clawback rates.

Some known weaknesses in the estimates:

Rosters are not final. To use the Wild as an example, maybe Dowell gets sent down and Brodin gets called up. Brodin is paid more than Dowell so that would increase this year's gross pre-escrow salary. However, several teams are listed with issues the other way (or simply have more than the maximum 23 players listed). Columbus has Ryan Murray and his $3.525MM contract listed, but he's expected by many to not see NHL time this season. I feel it evens out.

IR is not factored in. Frankly, I don't know exactly how IR does get factored in. Are payments to players who are on IR counted against the 57%? I would assume so, but I'm not certain. Also, I don't have a reasonable estimate for how much IR salary replacement will be for the league over an entire year. I would expect it would be low, but it is not being accounted for.

Real salary versus cap hit. This is the only one I'm actually a little concerned about. I have been forced (since I can't find a complete list of actual salaries for 2012-2013) to use cap hit instead of actual salary. This could be a big deal as players like Parise and Suter are earning far more than their actual cap hit this year. However, players like Komisarek, Giroux, and ever player on an ELC with bonuses actually earn less salary than their respective cap hit. I have no idea how many contracts there are like this, or whether they even each other out. I would suspect the range of effect could be significant, however, not significant enough to bring that figure anywhere near that 2008-2009 mark.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 11:34 AM
  #99
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
i didn't, according to the larry brooks article i posted earlier he said the players have never received less then 97.5% of their contact, which means that at most they lost to escrow is 3.5% once the duce has settled

i'm not saying your numbers are wrong, i'm saying what the players are saying and that is under the NHL rule their actual money is going to be less initially, PA is proposing a system when the HRR reduction is less sudden and thus the effect of escrow would be lessened on the players.

if you think of it from the player perspective, if over the last 7 years you have always received at least 97.5% of your contracted amount and you do the math and the last proposal and you see that next year you are not going to get close to that its a no deal.

Thats what Brooks was talking about when he said if NHL limits the clawback to no more then 5% we get traction, i'm not saying you are wrong on your escrow rate, what i;m saying is what the final amount of contract players receive initially will be lower under the NHL proposal dude to the sudden decrease in cap.

the way i see it is, if the players are due 57% this year of the pay, and they have to drop to 49% in one year, then the revenue gap of 8% is going to be given back to owners no? so initially escrow will go to the owners while the HRR and the CAP adjust.

again not saying you got the wrong % just saying what players are saying is that the real $ amount is what the players don't like about this system, they could pay out the 8 or so% escrow and not get a dime back, which would mean they are geting 92% of their contract value this year, or 5.5% lower then even in the worse of the last 7 years.
And Larry Brooks is lying. It's that simple, and shouldn't be surprising coming from the NY Post. He's not exactly an unbiased source.

The confirmed, from the league, and from the players, escrow clawback rates for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were the rates I previously quoted several times and provided source for.

For one last time, I am calculating against actual current rates on the actual contracts signed for the pending season. Teams (outside of a few like the Wild and Bruins) signed players with the expectation of a cap reduction with no salary rollback. Therefore, the total salaries across the league are trending towards the floor (8 teams are actually below the 57/43 split salary floor) instead of their usual trend towards the ceiling. This dramatic change in bias means that while projected revenues are rising at a rate of approximately $10MM per team (so a cap rise of around $5.7MM) actual cap spending is static or slightly down year over year. I didn't save my work from yesterday, but if I'm remembering correctly from the intermediate steps, if the season were to start with a 57/43 split and teams as they are right now for spending, the owners would be forced to issue a 7% excess payment to the players for the shortfall in their pay.

squidz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2012, 04:23 PM
  #100
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Looks like Pierre LeBrun is reporting that escrow clawback for last season was only 0.5%. Since it's a lot easier to work backwards this way, it seems that the CapGeek numbers I used for last season should not have had the second category added, and bumping league revenue up to $3.08BN (the original projection was $3.0BN, but I have heard $3.1BN batted about, so that makes sense) comes up with exactly that 0.5%.

This strongly validates the calculation for 2012-2013 escrow rate as there was no confusion on which numbers should be included from CapGeek. As it stands, escrow clawback in 2012-2013 at a 50/50 split would be less than it was in either 2008-2009 or 2009-2010, although more than 2011-2012 (no data on other years, except I believe 2005-2006 actually had the owners submit excess payments to the players as immediate post lockout revenue estimates were ridiculously off).

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 10:08 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.