HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

We'll Meet Again, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When (CBA/Lockout) XXVII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-13-2012, 01:42 PM
  #276
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artz19 View Post
That's what make whole was for. If the PA accepted the make whole provision it would have seen all the contracts negotiated at 57% fully honored.

The players made $1.883B last year. The NHL offer would have seen them get $1.734B based on 5% growth. The difference is $148.6M

In Year 2 the difference between $1.883B and the NHL proposal is $61.9M

$148.6M + $61.9M = $210.5M

The NHL offered $211M

If you include Make Whole, the players share is greater than 50% in years 1 and 2.
Ok, Artz19. I'll accept ignorance. I've never had it spelled out to me before, and probably I overlooked it being explained elsewhere. So ok then, What then did the players specifically object about the offer that included the Make Whole? Please though, if it takes a long explanation then there's no need to give it; my clarity of understanding isn't worthy of such an effort.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:44 PM
  #277
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Rob Rossi on FAN590 Hockeycentral today (19:47 mark):



HAHAHAHA there they all go, those soldiers all blithely marching in lock-step over a cliff.

Actually, that just makes me feel sad for the players.
I don't. They know what they signed up for when they brought him in.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:44 PM
  #278
meedle
Registered User
 
meedle's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 3,845
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, Artz19. I'll accept ignorance. I've never had it spelled out to me before, and probably I overlooked it being explained elsewhere. So ok then, What then did the players specifically object about the offer that included the Make Whole? Please though, if it takes a long explanation then there's no need to give it; my clarity of understanding isn't worthy of such an effort.
The players are still proposing delinked numbers plus they asked for a 1.76 percent raise cause of players that weren't signed yet. But yet its clear they are getting paid their 57 percent share in the first year. even tho that 149mil is deferred for a year..

meedle is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:45 PM
  #279
Artz19
Registered User
 
Artz19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, Artz19. I'll accept ignorance. I've never had it spelled out to me before, and probably I overlooked it being explained elsewhere. So ok then, What then did the players specifically object about the offer that included the Make Whole? Please though, if it takes a long explanation then there's no need to give it; my clarity of understanding isn't worthy of such an effort.
To put it simply: The players want the existing contracts in year 3 and on to be honored outside of the 50/50 split. They estimate the Make Whole should be $600M.

The NHL (quite rightly) says that they can honor those contracts within the 50/50 split.

Artz19 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:46 PM
  #280
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
I don't. They know what they signed up for when they brought him in.
Not true. Most players were in the dark about the Kelly firing (see Recchi article). The NHLPA has been run by the hardliners since Eagleson left in the early 90's and nothing is going to change that unless there is a mini-revolution.

HH is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  #281
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingpest19 View Post
Which is why the league came back and said they would pay the portion of make whole to cover up the losses and in effect not going immediately to 50/50. After which the PA changed the goal posts and said the amount of money the league was going to pony up wasnt nearly enough and they wanted all contracts covered regardless of the duration.

The league didnt necessarily have to do this considering the contracts are subject to the CBA that is in effect but did it to try and get a deal done. What exactly have the players given up in all this since you yourself said they had been doing all the giving?
Again, I have to rightfully confess that I didn't know the owners had made that offer. That makes a significant difference in my perspective.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  #282
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 29,180
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, Artz19. I'll accept ignorance. I've never had it spelled out to me before, and probably I overlooked it being explained elsewhere. So ok then, What then did the players specifically object about the offer that included the Make Whole? Please though, if it takes a long explanation then there's no need to give it; my clarity of understanding isn't worthy of such an effort.
Because it didn't guarantee every cent of every contract.

You see when the players say they are willing to give up a lot, they really mean they aren't willing to give up anything.

Freudian is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  #283
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
Ok, Artz19. I'll accept ignorance. I've never had it spelled out to me before, and probably I overlooked it being explained elsewhere. So ok then, What then did the players specifically object about the offer that included the Make Whole? Please though, if it takes a long explanation then there's no need to give it; my clarity of understanding isn't worthy of such an effort.
The NHLPA is still fighting for delinked, gauranteed dollar amounts.

Their complaint about the NHL make whole proposal is that it only makes them whole if the NHL revenues grows at 5% or above. This is very hypocritical on their part since they've been telling the NHL this entire time in their own proposals that its fair for them to assume a 5% or even a 7.1% growth rate in order to justify their delinked proposal.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:49 PM
  #284
HH
GO HABS GO!
 
HH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,275
vCash: 500
I don't get how people still say 'they agreed on 50-50''. No they didn't. The players are offering a delink system that MIGHT get to 50% IF the revenus grow at a 7% rate.

The NHL is offering a fix 50-50 split linked to revenues. Both sides are not even close.

HH is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:51 PM
  #285
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by meedle View Post
The players are still proposing delinked numbers plus they asked for a 1.76 percent raise cause of players that weren't signed yet. But yet its clear they are getting paid their 57 percent share in the first year. even tho that 149mil is deferred for a year..
The "delinking" is something I'm totally opposed to.
Again guys, I have to apologize. I haven't been following closely the details of the owners' latest offers, (just been following enough to see if it looked like things were going to come to a positive conclusion); so it now appears that the owners have made some fairly respectable concessions, and perhaps now I'd have to change my perspective and say that it's time the players started becoming more agreeable to what the owners are offering.

I'd still go this far though, that the owners could honor the pre-negotiated 57/43 contracts going forwards for 3 years, rather than 2. Then by the end of the 3rd year, all old contracts automatically convert to the 50/50. That would probably mean something between the $200mil offer by the owners and the $600mil expected by the players. Still closer to the $200mil, I would think though.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:55 PM
  #286
MtlPenFan
Registered User
 
MtlPenFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,984
vCash: 500
So when Fehr inevitably led a player's strike say, a month before the playoffs, what would have happened if the NHL asked for lost money based on playoff revenue?

MtlPenFan is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:57 PM
  #287
Turbofan
The Full 60 Minutes
 
Turbofan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,258
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
The "delinking" is something I'm totally opposed to.
Again guys, I have to apologize. I haven't been following closely the details of the owners' latest offers, (just been following enough to see if it looked like things were going to come to a positive conclusion); so it now appears that the owners have made some fairly respectable concessions, and perhaps now I'd have to change my perspective and say that it's time the players started becoming more agreeable to what the owners are offering.

I'd still go this far though, that the owners could honor the pre-negotiated 57/43 contracts going forwards for 3 years, rather than 2. Then by the end of the 3rd year, all old contracts automatically convert to the 50/50.
Holy crap man. Pat yourself on the back...you did two things that are very rarely ever done on the internet. You apologized, and then you said that you might have to change your mind based on other people's arguments. Bravo.

Turbofan is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:57 PM
  #288
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 20,348
vCash: 863
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
So when Fehr inevitably led a player's strike say, a month before the playoffs, what would have happened if the NHL asked for lost money based on playoff revenue?
He couldn't have

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 01:59 PM
  #289
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
He couldn't have
He already has before.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:00 PM
  #290
Artz19
Registered User
 
Artz19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreOrr View Post
I'd still go this far though, that the owners could honor the pre-negotiated 57/43 contracts going forwards for 3 years, rather than 2. Then by the end of the 3rd year, all old contracts automatically convert to the 50/50. That would probably mean something between the $200mil offer by the owners and the $600mil expected by the players. Still closer to the $200mil, I would think though.
They don't "convert". By year 3 there is only a small percantage of players under contract. They will be paid in full. The total revenue by that time would enough to pay those in full and the rest of the 50% players' share would be spent on the other deals.

Artz19 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:01 PM
  #291
Crows*
 
Crows*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,307
vCash: 500
@reporterchris: More strong comments from Sidney Crosby today: "If it keeps going like this, everybody's going to lose."

Crows* is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:03 PM
  #292
1865
Registered User
 
1865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester, UK
Country: England
Posts: 9,187
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtlPenFan View Post
So when Fehr inevitably led a player's strike say, a month before the playoffs, what would have happened if the NHL asked for lost money based on playoff revenue?
I don't see a reason why they can't sign to a clause saying neither side can stop playing.

1865 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:03 PM
  #293
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post
Holy crap man. Pat yourself on the back...you did two things that are very rarely ever done on the internet. You apologized, and then you said that you might have to change your mind based on other people's arguments. Bravo.
If people are showing me that what I've been arguing for has already happened, then what in the hell do I have to argue against. I appreciate your sentiment, but I'd be seriously stupid to continue criticizing the owners for not conceding something that they've already offered to do.

MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:04 PM
  #294
Hockey Crazy
Registered User
 
Hockey Crazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crows View Post
@reporterchris: More strong comments from Sidney Crosby today: "If it keeps going like this, everybody's going to lose."
Nothing would be bigger than Sid himself standing up to Fehr and telling him to get a deal done by next week. He is an icon and has one of the biggest contracts in the NHL, leaving him with the most to lose with a 50-50 split. I hope he doesn't keep his thoughts to himself.

Hockey Crazy is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:04 PM
  #295
McRib
2nd Rate Fan
 
McRib's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dingo View Post
He couldn't have
He would have. If the NHL had agreed to his preposterous proposal, it would've given every bit of negotiating leverage to the players. While it would've been nice to see NHL hockey while they were negotiating, Fehr would've hung a strike over the head of the owners if a deal wasn't reached by a certain date. Players don't get paid in the playoffs. Perfect time for the players to pull the plug and put pressure on the owners, as they would have already had gotten their salaries for the season.

McRib is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:06 PM
  #296
Jaqen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Crazy View Post
Nothing would be bigger than Sid himself standing up to Fehr and telling him to get a deal done by next week. He is an icon and has one of the biggest contracts in the NHL, leaving him with the most to lose with a 50-50 split. I hope he doesn't keep his thoughts to himself.
His thoughts are that this is the owners' fault and the players are getting screwed. He's spewing the same victimization and entitlement the rest of the NHLPA is, don't get your hopes up that he's going to start a coup d'etat, he's drinking Fehr's kool aid.

Jaqen is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:06 PM
  #297
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
League revenues and the 57% include profit numbers from playoff games right? So the players would have a chunk of the games affect them?

Of course, if the league were naive enough to do this, I doubt Fehr would tell the players that they are leaving money on the table. Leaving money on the table for nothing, that sounds a lot like right now.

I would love to comment on Crosby too, but I don't think I'm allowed.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:06 PM
  #298
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,339
vCash: 500
You know what, I'm sick of this whole BS platform based around 'fairness' and 'concessions'. I don't give a flying you know what who is right or wrong or whatnot.

I'll tell you what I care about. I care about the teams I've cheered for since I was a kid, and the health of Canadian franchises.

I care about the players that I've cheered for throughout the years.

The league gets a linked 50/50 split. That is good for my teams, the Canadian teams, and most of the league as a whole.

The players get made whole for this season. I would have preferred that they got a full 82-games worth of revenue but that's the price they pay for losing control of their own union. They get the money that they need to get in a short playing career, and they still make the millions of dollars that the visible face of the league should be making.

What is on the table from the NHL side right now should be run with. If the players can maintain all FA rights except for variance, it's good for everybody.

And here's the thing - who cares if they fix it? First of all, noone knows exactly how to fix things. You just have to go with your best guess and see how it all plays out. Even if a drop to 50/50 simply ameliorates the losses of the teams on the cusp so their billionaire owners don't feel like they are taking a bath in losses from their personal toys, everyone will be happy and there will be less chance of a labour stoppage in the future.

If these changes don't work, then they will deal with it. Just like we all deal with issues that come up in real life. But that is then and this is now. Fighting for the future seems like a good slogan, but unless you're proposing a system that drastically and absolutely (like removing slavery, adopting democracy, etc) improves the rights of the impoverished or disenfranchised, it's way more important to live in the now.

At the end of the day, it's about who is holding the deal up the most. Both are to blame but I know who I think is most responsible.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:07 PM
  #299
habfan1968
Registered User
 
habfan1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,126
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryHabs View Post
I don't get how people still say 'they agreed on 50-50''. No they didn't. The players are offering a delink system that MIGHT get to 50% IF the revenus grow at a 7% rate.

The NHL is offering a fix 50-50 split linked to revenues. Both sides are not even close.
Sorry about saying that they agree that the split should be 50/50, you are correct that all the NHLPA offers are only based on growth projections and are not actually linked to HRR.

The NHLPA really needs to understand that even with getting say 57% this season will not make up for the actual dollars they are losing now. They are losing every day that goes by, say they could squeeze in 70 games, they will only get 70 games worth of actual pay this season or less than a total of the 7% difference the NHL wants them to be at. They would have to play 74 games just to be reduced by 10% total pay. They are already down more than 11.5% of the salary they could have received this season by playing out all 82 games.

habfan1968 is offline  
Old
11-13-2012, 02:08 PM
  #300
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artz19 View Post
They don't "convert". By year 3 there is only a small percantage of players under contract. They will be paid in full. The total revenue by that time would enough to pay those in full and the rest of the 50% players' share would be spent on the other deals.
If the owners have offered to pay all pre-existing contracts in full at the 57/43 split, that's in full until those contracts expire... then I must ask: What other concessions do the players want? That's a really big concession there by the owners, and I applaud them for it.

MoreOrr is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:05 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.