* Allow me to apologize for passing along misinformation on my @NYP_Brooksie Twitter account on Friday that the NHLPA had proposed the players be paid their full salaries for this season. Not so.
There was much confusion into the night on this one, but the true story is the union was basing its revenue projections off a hypothetical full 2012-13 and not a hard-dollars share for this year. Indeed, the PA expects pay to be prorated for this season.
I choose to believe that my original sources made a mistake and were not intentionally attempting to deceive, but the mistake was mine in forwarding the reports absent confirmation.
Moral of the story, don't believe everything you read, especially on twitter where true journalism goes to die.
Brooks is a lousy reporter when it comes to controversy; over-eager to report scoops, etc. His relationship with Torts is a good indication of his level of professionalism (i.e. not high). I wouldn't believe anything controversial that he reports without at least two other people reporting it as well. Regular run of the mill stuff you can probably trust it.
Meantime great overview of the situation from McKenzie including his take on the NHL calling Fehr out on his communication etc. So far I see nothing to confirm that notion. Craig Adams, Taylor Hall and others have specifically come out in defense of Fehr's communication skills on this. And you know Adams is no meathead / has a real grasp of what's going on.
Brooks is a lousy reporter when it comes to controversy; over-eager to report scoops, etc. His relationship with Torts is a good indication of his level of professionalism (i.e. not high). I wouldn't believe anything controversial that he reports without at least two other people reporting it as well. Regular run of the mill stuff you can probably trust it.
Meantime great overview of the situation from McKenzie including his take on the NHL calling Fehr out on his communication etc. So far I see nothing to confirm that notion. Craig Adams, Taylor Hall and others have specifically come out in defense of Fehr's communication skills on this. And you know Adams is no meathead / has a real grasp of what's going on.
Except Adams has a degree in history from, Harvard. I doubt he has a real grasp on economics. Adams is a real reading buff from what I gather, and I doubt he learned economics in this short of time.
Except Adams has a degree in history from, Harvard. I doubt he has a real grasp on economics. Adams is a real reading buff from what I gather, and I doubt he learned economics in this short of time.
Give the guy some credit. All anyone needs to do to understand this stuff better is read a couple good books on business negotiations, and on economics in the sports and entertainment industry, then stay up to date with a good magazine like the Economist. This isn't rocket science. These aren't nobel prize winners debating and crunching the numbers here. Just a bunch of business tycoons and lawyers.
It IS over the head of the average player (and the average fan), but it is not over the head of someone like Adams IMO. I would trust what he says more than most players for sure.
Plus, you don't graduate from Harvard without taking some business and econ classes, even if you're a history major. He should have the resources upstairs to know what's going on, based on what I know of the man. But I could be wrong.
Meantime, Sid should be quiet because he clearly does NOT have the background to be commenting, except in a very general way about the flow of negotiations or things like that. He's the perfect example of someone who probably has only a cursory understanding of the accounting and economics involved. Any of these guys who never went to college, especially the younger ones whose lives have consisted mostly of playing, partying and video games so far, probably don't understand much.
Give the guy some credit. All anyone needs to do to understand this stuff better is read a couple good books on business negotiations, and on economics in the sports and entertainment industry, then stay up to date with a good magazine like the Economist. This isn't rocket science. These aren't nobel prize winners debating and crunching the numbers here. Just a bunch of business tycoons and lawyers.
It IS over the head of the average player (and the average fan), but it is not over the head of someone like Adams IMO. I would trust what he says more than most players for sure.
Plus, you don't graduate from Harvard without taking some business and econ classes, even if you're a history major. He should have the resources upstairs to know what's going on, based on what I know of the man. But I could be wrong.
Meantime, Sid should be quiet because he clearly does NOT have the background to be commenting, except in a very general way about the flow of negotiations or things like that. He's the perfect example of someone who probably has only a cursory understanding of the accounting and economics involved. Any of these guys who never went to college, especially the younger ones whose lives have consisted mostly of playing, partying and video games so far, probably don't understand much.
Crosby just gave his owner(s) about 50m extra to spend so I think he understands the art of give and take here.
I'd like to see the owners win on most of the contracting issues, because it will help teams like the Pens control costs and keep their better players.
But the point he is making is pretty valid. If the players are coming down 7%, why would they also give in on contract issues that also helps to keep their salaries down as well?
Give the guy some credit. All anyone needs to do to understand this stuff better is read a couple good books on business negotiations, and on economics in the sports and entertainment industry, then stay up to date with a good magazine like the Economist. This isn't rocket science. These aren't nobel prize winners debating and crunching the numbers here. Just a bunch of business tycoons and lawyers.
It IS over the head of the average player (and the average fan), but it is not over the head of someone like Adams IMO. I would trust what he says more than most players for sure.
Plus, you don't graduate from Harvard without taking some business and econ classes, even if you're a history major. He should have the resources upstairs to know what's going on, based on what I know of the man. But I could be wrong.
Meantime, Sid should be quiet because he clearly does NOT have the background to be commenting, except in a very general way about the flow of negotiations or things like that. He's the perfect example of someone who probably has only a cursory understanding of the accounting and economics involved. Any of these guys who never went to college, especially the younger ones whose lives have consisted mostly of playing, partying and video games so far, probably don't understand much.
I'll concede on, Adams. I also feel he has a good head on his shoulders. I think Sid doesn't have a grasp on this for sure, and he probably leans on Adams for his explanation of how these work out. But really, if these guys are solely depending on Fehr for his take, he's got them out too lunch.
What it all boils down to, for me, is that we'll all be here again real soon again because, the slow chipping away at the issue is gonna take decades to get the league where it should be now. It'll take only the ones who can afford to lose a few mil over the course of their contracts to actually be where it's close enough for this round of CBA dealings.
Crosby just gave his owner(s) about 50m extra to spend so I think he understands the art of give and take here.
I'd like to see the owners win on most of the contracting issues, because it will help teams like the Pens control costs and keep their better players.
But the point he is making is pretty valid. If the players are coming down 7%, why would they also give in on contract issues that also helps to keep their salaries down as well?
I still don't get why ELCs are a sticking point.
It's all about reducing the players leverage for the 2nd contract, allowing teams to maintain their homegrown players longer at a lower cost. 2 years ELC, 5 year maximum length on contracts and UFA after 8 seasons leaves the players with very little, if any, leverage for their 2nd contract.
It's all about reducing the players leverage for the 2nd contract, allowing teams to maintain their homegrown players longer at a lower cost. 2 years ELC, 5 year maximum length on contracts and UFA after 8 seasons leaves the players with very little, if any, leverage for their 2nd contract.
My bad, I wasn't very clear...
I understand why the league wants two year ELCs. What I don't understand, is why the players have dug in on the issue.
Rookie contracts you would assume would be on the bottom of the totem pole for the PA. Unless they know it is an important issue to the league, and are trying to play it up as a core issue for them, to gain leverage elsewhere if they concede the ELCs.
Crosby just gave his owner(s) about 50m extra to spend so I think he understands the art of give and take here.
I'd like to see the owners win on most of the contracting issues, because it will help teams like the Pens control costs and keep their better players.
But the point he is making is pretty valid. If the players are coming down 7%, why would they also give in on contract issues that also helps to keep their salaries down as well?
I still don't get why ELCs are a sticking point.
That's not really the case though. 50% is 50%. Even if players' contracts only cover, say, 47% of revenues in a season, the other 3% will go back to the players (assuming salaries remain linked to revenue). From a financial standpoint, the contracting issues only effect the distribution of the money; not the actual amount that is paid out.
I can understand why most of these issues are important to some players and a few owners. And I can understand why the owners would insist on the 5% variance rule in particular to prevent salary cap circumvention. But I don't see why the rest of the contract issues are such a big deal. Any player currently contracted beyond 28 yrs old (Sidney Crosby, for instance) is completely unaffected. The entry-level contract changes affect no current members of the PA. And again, there's no effect on how much money the owners are paying out (as a collective, at least -- there will be slight variations from one team to the next).
If the league and the union are as close on revenue sharing and HRR split as the media has been reporting, it makes no sense that contract terms should hold up an agreement. I suspect it'll take a little while longer in the enduring spirit of brinkmanship, but they'll settle on the 5% variance rule and one or two other changes before any more games are cancelled. There's just too much money at stake for the league to risk games on budget-neutral issues like contract terms.
Give the guy some credit. All anyone needs to do to understand this stuff better is read a couple good books on business negotiations, and on economics in the sports and entertainment industry, then stay up to date with a good magazine like the Economist. This isn't rocket science. These aren't nobel prize winners debating and crunching the numbers here. Just a bunch of business tycoons and lawyers.
It IS over the head of the average player (and the average fan), but it is not over the head of someone like Adams IMO. I would trust what he says more than most players for sure.
Plus, you don't graduate from Harvard without taking some business and econ classes, even if you're a history major. He should have the resources upstairs to know what's going on, based on what I know of the man. But I could be wrong.
Meantime, Sid should be quiet because he clearly does NOT have the background to be commenting, except in a very general way about the flow of negotiations or things like that. He's the perfect example of someone who probably has only a cursory understanding of the accounting and economics involved. Any of these guys who never went to college, especially the younger ones whose lives have consisted mostly of playing, partying and video games so far, probably don't understand much.
Absolutely. I'm positive Adams has a handle on it. We aren't talking high level econ/business. Anything that he is deficient in he could have easily brushed up on.
That's not really the case though. 50% is 50%. Even if players' contracts only cover, say, 47% of revenues in a season, the other 3% will go back to the players (assuming salaries remain linked to revenue). From a financial standpoint, the contracting issues only effect the distribution of the money; not the actual amount that is paid out.
The distribution angle is obvious, but it is every man for himself when they are trying to get a new deal. Contractual restraints will affect how much each player can make over his career.
Quote:
I can understand why most of these issues are important to some players and a few owners. And I can understand why the owners would insist on the 5% variance rule in particular to prevent salary cap circumvention. But I don't see why the rest of the contract issues are such a big deal. Any player currently contracted beyond 28 yrs old (Sidney Crosby, for instance) is completely unaffected. The entry-level contract changes affect no current members of the PA. And again, there's no effect on how much money the owners are paying out (as a collective, at least -- there will be slight variations from one team to the next).
I can see trying to get a year back on UFA and not wanting length capped at five years, but the ELC issue has me confused for sure.
Crosby cares, I assume, because other players care, so it is keeping him from playing hockey. The UFA and term of length will not affect him until he is 35, and by the time his next deal comes around, it will most likely be negotiated under another CBA.
Quote:
If the league and the union are as close on revenue sharing and HRR split as the media has been reporting, it makes no sense that contract terms should hold up an agreement. I suspect it'll take a little while longer in the enduring spirit of brinkmanship, but they'll settle on the 5% variance rule and one or two other changes before any more games are cancelled. There's just too much money at stake for the league to risk games on budget-neutral issues like contract terms.
I dunno. I'm done thinking common sense will ever prevail.
This is America. Common sense has no place here... just look at our politics and media. Common sense is boring, dude! We need drama and entertainment value with everything we do! That's why the average voter can tell you who won the hillbilly handfishin contest, who got killed by a zombie last Sunday, who the top 5 rushers in the NFL are, who the latest teen youtube sensation is... but can't draw you a supply and demand diagram or name even a third of the Supreme Court if you remove Clarence "Pubes" Thomas (and of course he is known for the drama at his confirmation hearings a long time ago).
"The longer they're out, the revenues are going to go down and down," he told The Boston Globe. "Corporate sponsors aren't going to be lining up...so there goes that money. The schedule isn't going to be 82 games, I don't think, at this point. That's more money lost. So, how are you going to get a better deal? Personally, I think the best time is now."
Quote:
Recchi also expressed his shock regarding the news three years ago that the players fired then-executive director Paul Kelly.
"A dark time," Recchi told The Globe. "And it has been frustrating to see how it's played out, obviously. If Paul had stayed on the job, I don't think you would have seen this happen. The two sides would have started talking long before, maybe a year sooner (in 2011), and not with two or three months to go before (the CBA) expired. There would have been something in place, absolutely....
I just can't help but think that this lockout is really going to hurt Pittsburghs chances at re-signing Malkin.
I don't think so. He seems like a loyal guy and Shero will likely do whatever it takes to sign him. He is too valuable to the organization to let walk. Trading Martin, Orpik, hell even Fleury will come before letting Malkin walk.
I'm pretty much on the owner's side at this point. But if anyone has the right to **** about this process, it's Sid. The best player in the world is going to miss playing a full season in his prime for the third straight year. I'd be livid.
I fear Crosby runs the risk of hurting himself in the pocketbook doubly so by speaking out like this. Not only is he losing money every day that there is no CBA he is walking a fine line of squandering that good boy, clean image that makes him such an appealing target of endorsements. Honestly, he should just no comment this thing out and ride it out. We can assume he is on the side of the players, that doesnt mean he needs to come out with statements. He needs to realize that a lot of his most loyal fans are pretty ticked off at his side of this issue. His boss, the one who housed him when he entered into this league and basically mentored him apparently thinks differently about this issue. It's just messy and he doesnt need to be entering into the fray.
Crysby needs to shut up and get down to the business of playing hockey, and the stonewalling by the PA isn't helping anything. Owners run the business. /thread
