The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Owner-Player meeting only, no Bettman or Fehr (UPD: 12/4 in NYC)
I was fairly certain that insurance premiums count against the player share. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say though.
My understanding is that insurance costs counts towards the players share (as a benefit). However it's still dead money. The players are not receiving that money (insurance costs) yet it counts towards their share, and the clubs do not see it. It's costs like this that go to neither party that the league should be trying to minimize. Obviously some insurance is required (I'm actually surprised that only the 5 most expensive contracts need to be insured), but the more they can limit those costs, the better off everyone is. The players (as a collective) receive more money as insurance is eating up a smaller portion, and the league is happy, as they're paying less in insurance, and they've leveled the playing field.
__________________ "It’s not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, it’s as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
So, how come NHLPA and many posters here are up in arms because hard-liner like Jacobs in the meeting but nobody seems to have problem with Ryan Miller (rumouredly) being there?
Miller has made his share of stupid statements in the public, atleast when it comes to Jacobs all we have is unnamed sources supposedly telling guys like Haggerty, Brooks etc. how horrible Jacobs is?
So, how come NHLPA and many posters here are up in arms because hard-liner like Jacobs in the meeting but nobody seems to have problem with Ryan Miller (rumouredly) being there?
Miller has made his share of stupid statements in the public, atleast when it comes to Jacobs all we have is unnamed sources supposedly telling guys like Haggerty, Brooks etc. how horrible Jacobs is?
Because when the NHL's putting at least two of its hard-liners in the room you have to expect the PA to counter with a couple of big-name hard-liners on their side too.
How was it decided that these were the owners to attend?
I understand the NYR owner Dolan wanted to come but was denied.
With regards to the NHL not wanting the mediators there. I wonder why not? They could sit quietly and observe only. If that is what they were instructed to do. How you hear and understand things is based on prior experience. How many of the players have prior experience in discussing labour issues?
It wouldn't shock me if it's because the mediators said things the owners didn't like in the short time they were together. This lockout is about nothing but players being out for blood and owners wanting more control, it isn't a neccessity economically. It's the same reason Dolan's not in the room, they know he's a loose cannon and is likely to side with the PA.
It wouldn't shock me if it's because the mediators said things the owners didn't like in the short time they were together. This lockout is about nothing but players being out for blood and owners wanting more control, it isn't a neccessity economically. It's the same reason Dolan's not in the room, they know he's a loose cannon and is likely to side with the PA.
What part of the owners demands do not relate to economics?
What part of the owners demands do not relate to economics?
Contracting rights. While you and I may be aware that ultimately these too can influence the individual and overall economics, the common usage has been that percent share of HRR, and the cap system, are the 'economic' issues under contention; the player movement rights are referred to simply as contracting rights.
What part of the owners demands do not relate to economics?
Contract limits have next to nothing to do with economics (aside from insurance, which stunningly was never a big deal when teams were handing out 12+ year deals), neither does does pushing back the FA age. It only changes when and how players make their money, and is a far more restrictive system.
So, how come NHLPA and many posters here are up in arms because hard-liner like Jacobs in the meeting but nobody seems to have problem with Ryan Miller (rumouredly) being there?
Miller has made his share of stupid statements in the public, atleast when it comes to Jacobs all we have is unnamed sources supposedly telling guys like Haggerty, Brooks etc. how horrible Jacobs is?
I'd say that Miller isn't driving the boat. Jacobs most assuredly has been at the helm throughout.
My understanding is that insurance costs counts towards the players share (as a benefit). However it's still dead money. The players are not receiving that money (insurance costs) yet it counts towards their share, and the clubs do not see it. It's costs like this that go to neither party that the league should be trying to minimize. Obviously some insurance is required (I'm actually surprised that only the 5 most expensive contracts need to be insured), but the more they can limit those costs, the better off everyone is. The players (as a collective) receive more money as insurance is eating up a smaller portion, and the league is happy, as they're paying less in insurance, and they've leveled the playing field.
Minor nit, but I believe the premiums are based on the five top contracts per team; the teams can choose how to allot that insurance. (It would seem self-evident that they'd pick the five most expensive contracts, but technically it's the basis for the premiums paid.)
I was fairly certain that insurance premiums count against the player share. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide
My understanding is that insurance costs counts towards the players share (as a benefit). However it's still dead money. The players are not receiving that money (insurance costs) yet it counts towards their share, and the clubs do not see it. It's costs like this that go to neither party that the league should be trying to minimize. Obviously some insurance is required (I'm actually surprised that only the 5 most expensive contracts need to be insured), but the more they can limit those costs, the better off everyone is. The players (as a collective) receive more money as insurance is eating up a smaller portion, and the league is happy, as they're paying less in insurance, and they've leveled the playing field.
Insurance is included in benefits, but I don't believe the contract insurance premiums would count as benefits.
Quote:
50.3(a)(i) "Benefits" means:
(A) The aggregate amount of all sums paid by the League
and/or the Clubs (including any costs associated with the
administration and provision of such benefits) for, to, or on
behalf of present Players and present Players who become
former Players for:
...
(2) Group insurance programs including life, medical
and dental coverage and any disability plans
(including any costs associated with the
administration and provision of such benefits); plus
...
The player contracts are already guaranteed if an injury is sustained in the course of hockey employment. The league's blanket contract insurance policy pays the team in the case the player is injured. There is no benefit being provided to the player by this policy--the benefit is to the team. Hence I wouldn't expect that insurance premium to be included in the benefits charged against the player share.
Minor nit, but I believe the premiums are based on the five top contracts per team; the teams can choose how to allot that insurance. (It would seem self-evident that they'd pick the five most expensive contracts, but technically it's the basis for the premiums paid.)
According to the one past article we have teams were required to pay a total insurance premium based on their top 5 contracts, but then could spread the purchased coverage amount amongst more contracts if desired--even partially covering potions of some contracts.
The PA might come close to accepting the NHL's offer (I would suspect that 30%+ would likely take it). However the NHL would not accept the PA's offer as it's written.
With some changes to the PA's (make whole, buyouts, long term deals, fact that cap can never drop, etc) I could see it being more acceptable. However the same could be said for the NHL's. Drop a couple of the issues, and the PA would likely sign it tomorrow.
As for what I think this meeting could do? Get new people in there and try to get both sides to understand where the other is coming from. Specifically what the league is trying to accomplish with what they've proposed (am thinking contractual issues), and if there's any common ground (players think they could get PA to sign off on a max contract length, if the rest is dropped, etc).
Or it could be a complete waste of time. However it can't be any worse than where things are at currently.
With the owners agreeing to play the make whole I'd bet that the last proposal might pass if put to a vote.
Contracting rights. While you and I may be aware that ultimately these too can influence the individual and overall economics, the common usage has been that percent share of HRR, and the cap system, are the 'economic' issues under contention; the player movement rights are referred to simply as contracting rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26
Contract limits have next to nothing to do with economics (aside from insurance, which stunningly was never a big deal when teams were handing out 12+ year deals), neither does does pushing back the FA age. It only changes when and how players make their money, and is a far more restrictive system.
Absolutely they have to do with economics. Yes the player share is capped at 50% (or whatever is agreed to). However Minny paying 24m (or whatever Parise and Suter get) above the ~15m cap hit affects their bottom line - especially when whatever is returned via escrow doesn't ALL go back to the team footing the bill. I was under the belief that insurance was bulked in as a benefit. As it's not, it's even more of an issue for the league to get under control. And it's unlikely that it was an issue 7 years ago... as how many contracts did we see pre 04 lockout that were longer than 7 years? Those deals only came in with the cap.
So capping a players contract to 5 years (even without a limit on variance) will to an extent limit the difference between the cap hit and the actual dollar value paid out, as unless the player is in their later 30's, they will still expect (and receive) a respectable salary, so the contract (most likely) will not be back diving like Suter/Parise/etc are today. So while there will still be differences (between cap/contract) it will not be nearly as bad as it is today.
By extending the FA age (and restricting contract length and changing ELCs) they've effectively made it so the player is still a RFA when they need to sign their 3rd contract. That gives the team slightly more leverage when it comes time to sign a deal, and thus could benefit the team - whether this is real or perceived I'm not sure. I think the theory is the more control the team has over the player, the less it will cost them with that player (contract wise).
By changing ELC's it directly benefits the clubs as the player is under a ELC longer (2 full NHL seasons), and thus will cost the team less in salary.
By changing arbitration, the player has less leverage at the negotiation table, and it will cost the team less in salary.
Now those last 3 things mean less as what the league as a whole is determined by the split, but it does mean that what some teams individually pay will be less. And it also gives them more flexibility to build/assemble their team (based on the fact they have more control over the players).
So is it directly related to the economics? No, but it very much so ties into the costs each team incurs.
My overarching point is that you have distinguish which set is being discussed due to common usage or reference. If most people refer to these as econ vs nonecon, you have to make sure you continue with the same distinction.
My overarching point is that you have distinguish which set is being discussed due to common usage or reference. If most people refer to these as econ vs nonecon, you have to make sure you continue with the same distinction.
Fine but that's not reality, as it all impacts the economics.
I'm interested if Crosby will ask his owner why he's looking to cut his pay after he took a "home town discount" to $8.7M Cap hit. the number obviously means something to Crosby. I know they don't want to cut everyone but Crosby could still get $8.7M per yr from 29 other teams.
I would just like to hear that discussion, not to be confrontational, just interested to hear a response/explanation.
IMO the NHL could redeem itself for screwing the fans by televising this meeting.
I'm interested if Crosby will ask his owner why he's looking to cut his pay after he took a "home town discount" to $8.7M Cap hit. the number obviously means something to Crosby. I know they don't want to cut everyone but Crosby could still get $8.7M per yr from 29 other teams.
I would just like to hear that discussion, not to be confrontational, just interested to hear a response/explanation.
IMO the NHL could redeem itself for screwing the fans by televising this meeting.
Oh, yeah, because that's the kind of question that invites a thoughtful dialogue. LOL. This is just making puppy dog eyes and crying.
I'm interested if Crosby will ask his owner why he's looking to cut his pay after he took a "home town discount" to $8.7M Cap hit. the number obviously means something to Crosby. I know they don't want to cut everyone but Crosby could still get $8.7M per yr from 29 other teams.
I would just like to hear that discussion, not to be confrontational, just interested to hear a response/explanation.
IMO the NHL could redeem itself for screwing the fans by televising this meeting.
I seem to recall that either Bettman or Fehr said that negotiations should be televised. We'd get the true picture then.
Anyone know what time this meeting is tomorrow, EST?
Oh, yeah, because that's the kind of question that invites a thoughtful dialogue. LOL. This is just making puppy dog eyes and crying.
I think it's a fair question, the same as the expected "for the betterment of the NHL moving forward, we need this" would be an acceptable answer. But when you have the face of the NHL speaking up and asking a constructive and being accepting of a constructive reply, I think it could result in some decent conversations. At the end of the day, this is the key issue no?
I'm interested if Crosby will ask his owner why he's looking to cut his pay after he took a "home town discount" to $8.7M Cap hit. the number obviously means something to Crosby. I know they don't want to cut everyone but Crosby could still get $8.7M per yr from 29 other teams.
I would just like to hear that discussion, not to be confrontational, just interested to hear a response/explanation.
IMO the NHL could redeem itself for screwing the fans by televising this meeting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve
I think it's a fair question, the same as the expected "for the betterment of the NHL moving forward, we need this" would be an acceptable answer. But when you have the face of the NHL speaking up and asking a constructive and being accepting of a constructive reply, I think it could result in some decent conversations. At the end of the day, this is the key issue no?
Except that he doesn't get 8.7m a year - nor did he under his old/current contract. The last one was 9m for 4 years and 7.5m for 1 year for a 8.7m avg. However with escrow, he received an additional few % (~1?) twice, and had as much as 12% deducted one year (the rest it probably averaged out to ~3-4% that was deducted). It would be the same under the new deal. The first 4 years or so is close to 12m a year, and then it peters off down to 3 or 4m in the last year or two (when he's 37 or 38 - can't remember which).
So A it's not like he set up his contract to give him exactly 8.7m a year, year in and year out and that a new CBA will screw with that. And B, that deal was in the works (and signed) long before the NHL released it's first offer to the PA. So while one could suspect that Burkle might have had a good idea that the NHL would look to get the split down, there's many different ways that could have happened so that the players didn't get hammered in escrow (and we're seeing that with the make whole provision).
My point is, this question is an emotional one that has no real bearing. The way things are looking (with make whole) the current players will not have their pay cut in any meaningful way (other than escrow as it would happen any other year previously). The NHL is looking to cut back on what they pay players overall, however that doesn't mean current players will be affected. More so that players who's contracts are expiring will feel the brunt of this over the next couple of summers. After which enough contracts will have expired (something like 60+% iirc) that the market will have been reset to the new CBA.
Except that he doesn't get 8.7m a year - nor did he under his old/current contract. The last one was 9m for 4 years and 7.5m for 1 year for a 8.7m avg. However with escrow, he received an additional few % (~1?) twice, and had as much as 12% deducted one year (the rest it probably averaged out to ~3-4% that was deducted). It would be the same under the new deal. The first 4 years or so is close to 12m a year, and then it peters off down to 3 or 4m in the last year or two (when he's 37 or 38 - can't remember which).
So A it's not like he set up his contract to give him exactly 8.7m a year, year in and year out and that a new CBA will screw with that. And B, that deal was in the works (and signed) long before the NHL released it's first offer to the PA. So while one could suspect that Burkle might have had a good idea that the NHL would look to get the split down, there's many different ways that could have happened so that the players didn't get hammered in escrow (and we're seeing that with the make whole provision).
My point is, this question is an emotional one that has no real bearing. The way things are looking (with make whole) the current players will not have their pay cut in any meaningful way (other than escrow as it would happen any other year previously). The NHL is looking to cut back on what they pay players overall, however that doesn't mean current players will be affected. More so that players who's contracts are expiring will feel the brunt of this over the next couple of summers. After which enough contracts will have expired (something like 60+% iirc) that the market will have been reset to the new CBA.
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or confrontational, but I believe this question, or something similar, will be asked. That's how the players feel and who better to ask it?
I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or confrontational, but I believe this question, or something similar, will be asked. That's how the players feel and who better to ask it?
Then the owners will respond by saying that for the first year, we aren't asking you to take a paycut or rollback but rather defer part of that years salary until the following year with the rest of deferred to two years later. That is where the 211 million make whole part comes in as after that revenues should grow enough that the salaries can be normalized to 50%.
That 211 million is equal to exactly the same amount as the 7% difference in HRR for the first year or two.
