I don't necessarily agree with all of Miller's points, but they should leave the contracts the way they were for sure. It wasn't as if they were getting 100% based on escrow before anyway, so leave them in as a provision.
Miller did good though because he could formulate an opinion and thought without sounding like some clown.
The Miller comment was nicely worded...though you could say the same thing just replace the word owners with players. Both sides are trying to hold on for what they want, but if someone doesn't budge then what's the point. It's a staring contest between two mannequins at this point
That's true. The PA is just as guilty as they are trying to test the resolve of the owners and while they know that financially the owners have the leverage to hold out longer, it was as clear as day that their first proposal was meant to create a divide among the owners.
Except if revenues grow at a certain rate according to the players designation they then want a cut but if revenues dip the owners are still on the hook. Seems like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Give me one three-year period in the last 40 years of NHL hockey where revenue declined
How many of these points are actually mandated by the CBA, and how many of them are club-specific "perks" aimed at attracting and retaining players?
I may be wrong, but:
- CBA: per-diem, equipment costs
- Club choice: Flights, Hotel, Gym, Trainers
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a club thinks that it's in their best financial interest to cut costs by looking for cheaper alternatives in flights, hotel and player facilities then they are well within their rights to do so. However, cheaping out here will adversely impact a club's ability to attract free agents.
Non-player costs are just another arms race created by the cap. Before 2005 teams were allowed to spend whatever they wanted on player salaries. With the cap, excess funds that were previously budgeted towards salaries could now be applied to new and innovative ways of improving player performance and morale. Take the Canucks for example: They were one of the first teams to spend $$millions renovating the players' dressing room into a luxurious lounge.
Restricting the cap further will just increase the disparities between the rich and poor clubs in this regard.
Anyway, I'd love to see a breakdown of non-player costs by category if such a thing existed. HA!
PS. Per-diems are a tiny fraction of a club's operating budget. Assuming a 23-man roster and that half the 275-day season is spent on the road (an overestimate), per-diems costs a club under $325,000 a year.
But isn't that part of the player's notion of self entitlement?
It's unfortunate that it seems the League and the players have to go through this every 8 years or so, but when you toss aside CBA negotiations, my God are these guys ever treated like royalty. Seemingly every whim is catered to, yet when it's time for negotiating a new deal it's like they've convinced themselves that they're serfs begging for scraps to be tossed over the Kingdom walls.
I try to be as neutral as possible, but how can I when a guy like Barch comes out and starts whining? He, who's made over 3M dollars in his career for essentially being useless (a guy making 100K a year which is a pretty good salary, would have to work 30 years to make that much) starts whining during a drinking binge, how am I not supposed to take the owner's side? Horcoff, the master tool himself who's the poster boy for what's wrong in sports was the last straw. Instead of getting down on his hands and knees and thanking whatever God he believes in that he's made the money he's made, he actually thought that calling names would win him some sympathy. It didn't.
There is s much money tied up in ling therm contracts that it will take a very long time for the HRR split to be financially sound.
Again, you're asking the owners to accept at least 5 more years of losses before reaching a close to 50/50 (going by the NHLPA's 3rd offer).
You continue to read what you want to read... It gets old explaining this, but I will do it one last time.
The players will go to 50/50 immediately (on all future contracts) if the owners honor the current contracts. The owners don't want anything to do with this offer, because it means actual money out of their pockets and not the player's pockets.
As I said, if you add another 50-60m (with wiggle room to add probably 10-15m more because the PA will push for at least 210) into RS, cut off 7% from all contracts going fwd AND you factor in the floor being artificially lowered, it would take a great amount of incompetence for a team to lose money (save Phoenix, but that is Bettman's mess).
You sign a ten year deal and by the midpoint the bulk of contracts will be at 50%, while the owners who signed the ridiculous long term deals will have to be accountable for their decisions.
Nothing shady here. Just owners being accountable for their past mistakes and having to run their teams in a sound manner.
With pumped up RS, a lower floor and all new contracts at 50%, once again, for the fifth time, the only teams that would lose money would be ones with incompetent mgmt.
Here is how the market works. Owners decide how much they pay their employees. The employees can choose to work for them, or they can choose not to. If the NHLPA think they deserve more money, they should go into the open market and find better employment.
Please. Tell me more about his "market" and its strange functions.
Hate to nitpick a vague statement like that, especially since we'll find out soon enough, but he said "hockey" not "NHL" so that leaves me to believe (like others have said) that it has something to do with Europe, likely Crosby heading there.
But vague statement is vague, who knows. I've been wrong more than I've been right.
Wrong, before the last lockout under a non cap system the league as a collective lost around $270 million. Now under a cap system the league as a collective made over a $100 million in profit. The cap has absolutley worked in helping the league gain not only competetive parity but also financial stability. The problem is that there ares still a number of teams losing money and that needs to be adressed. There isnt enough profit lying around to fix it completely by revenue sharing so as a result the league is asking for a greater share to help fund RS.
The main difference between the owners and the PA's set of proposals is that in the players proposal it puts all the risk on the owners whereas the risks are shared evenly under the owners proposal. The players need to be willing to accept some risk here maybe not the whole 50/50 that the owners proposed but they need to accept some. If they are confident in there growth projections the PA shouldnt have any problem accepting a linked 54% in year 1 52% in year 2 and get to a linked 50% in year 3 or 4. This proposal would present risks and rewards to both sides, revenue grows at a fast pace the players recoup their salaries quicker and potentiall gain a greater share. If it grows slower then they run the risk of not having all their salary paid like the current system. The owners in return would have to get most of the system changes they asked for.
Both sides should really be able to get something done they arnt that far apart.
I am right.
There is nothing in the old CBA that FORCED an owner to spend more than they took in.
You are wrong.
Nobody could say that and act as if HRR is going to solve the underlying problem...
That with linkage, when you have certain teams growing revenue fast while other teams are stagnant, those teams at the bottom won't be able to keep up with the cap floor.
If owning a business was as predictable and objective as math, more people would jump in and give it a try. The reality is that no one here has a solution that can surely work. The only thing that can prove or disprove a method is by applying that method and giving it some time to either see it succeed or fail. Too many people are trying to pretend like they're economics gurus who have special gifts to see into the future (not directed at you specifically, that's a general reference to make people on both sides of the debate).
I'm not going to pretend I know exactly what needs to be done or that there's some magical formula that guarantees success. What I can say is that it seems the owners are happy enough with the system in place that they're only looking to address the holes in the current system and give it some time before they reassess the situation. If they didn't see something worthwhile in the system, they wouldn't try to hold on to it. I know you're calling for the elimination of the salary cap but the NHL was there before and the league was worse off for it. No cap may work for the MLB, but it's already been a failure in the NHL and it's very unlikely that they'll lose more hockey just to wind up using the same system that they've already failed at.