HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Chicago Blackhawks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Lockout Thread 2: Deal reached in early morning hours

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 12:56 PM
  #726
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
No it's not?!?! You are talking about this season, I am talking about over the course of this deal relative to the Oct proposal.
Again, explain to me how they will make more money. The bones of the deal are the same now as they were in October: 50/50 split plus a make whole (I realize that in the October proposal the make whole was taken out of the players share, but Daly said at the time that it was negotiable so it is reasonable to believe at least part, if not all, would have been outside the players share). All the contracting rights are nice, but again, they only effect how the player's 50% is divvied up, not how much they get.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me how the players can possibly make more money over the life of the CBA with this deal compared to if they had negotiated off the October offer from the owners.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:00 PM
  #727
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
You do understand future players gain by additional years on contract limits and variance, right? The figure they PA will gain from buy outs will be fairly large. In addition, changes have been make to make whole since October.
As a whole, no they do not. Additional years on contracts will benefit certain players (the elite players) but will cost others. The buy outs count towards the players half, so any money "gained" from buyouts will be "lost" through escrow.

This is a zero sum game. The players have agreed to 50/50. All the contracting stuff and buyouts only effects how that money is divvied up among the players, not how much they get as a whole.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:05 PM
  #728
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
And if you did it on the NHL's October offer?
That math is beyond me, but I would still say that they would of lost close to that amount in that offer. Not only that, there was far more to it than money, it was about rights and the lower salaried players, who really only lost a couple hundred thousand that can easily make that back with the current deal where as they may have been out of a job sooner with the last deal. (2year ELCs, max contract length, no change to min salary, etc)

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:09 PM
  #729
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
That math is beyond me, but I would still say that they would of lost close to that amount in that offer. Not only that, there was far more to it than money, it was about rights and the lower salaried players, who really only lost a couple hundred thousand that can easily make that back with the current deal where as they may have been out of a job sooner with the last deal. (2year ELCs, max contract length, no change to min salary, etc)
And I would disagree. It appears that the "wins" that you point to are exactly why the players followed Fehr off the cliff so to speak. Issues like max term and variance have literally no effect on 90% of the players in the league, and yet 100% of the league had to pay the price to get small changes in those issues.

Not only that, all the contracting issues that the players "won" since the October offer HAVE NO IMPACT ON HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE OVER THE LIFE OF THIS CBA. None. All that it changes is how that 50% is divvied up.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:13 PM
  #730
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
As a whole, no they do not. Additional years on contracts will benefit certain players (the elite players) but will cost others. The buy outs count towards the players half, so any money "gained" from buyouts will be "lost" through escrow.

This is a zero sum game. The players have agreed to 50/50. All the contracting stuff and buyouts only effects how that money is divvied up among the players, not how much they get as a whole.
Some players will make out better, some will not of course. You can't say anything for certain. The extra years + buyouts + variance + changes to make whole + pension, the difference in salary lost. You have to wait and see. The players were losing no matter what in this deal relative to the last deal.

HawksFan74 is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:15 PM
  #731
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 103,285
vCash: 340
Oh and the NHLPA isn't getting 300M in make whole for the record

Quote:
while it is "listed" as $300 Million, actually significantly less. This years money, which was about $170 or $180 Million of it, will be "pro-rated" for the lost salaries, as a result of the canceled games, thus should only be about 60% of the listed $170 or $180 Million....$50 Million of the monies "added" when the league "increased" its offer to $300 Million, might never be paid. That $50 Million is "set aside" TO BE USED AT THE END OF THE CBA, IN THE EVENT THERE IS A SHORTFALL IN THE PENSION PLAN. So if revenues don't take a big hit for several years, that $50 Million will never be paid.

In short, players will get FOR SURE about $175 Million "out of the system".

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:17 PM
  #732
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
My argument is that while I completely agree that the PA were able to get concessions in the final deal compared to the one offered in October. That does not make up for the following:

- Except for the changes to the "make whole" and pensions, none of the changes have any effect on how much money the players, collectively, will make over this CBA. All of the contracting issues simply modify how that agreed upon 50% is divvied up.

- Many of the "wins" for the players could have been negotiated (at leas partially) off the owners save the 82 game offer. It simply makes no sense that the owners would not have been more amenable to changes in contract lengths, variance etc (all issues, as I said above, that don't affect how much the players get) if they were able to get a full 82 game schedule in

- The combination of lost revenue from games lost, as well as the hit on future HRR from this lockout, is much greater than any monetary gain the players have made in the latest offer.

Can someone please explain where I am wrong? I honestly don't understand how anyone can claim this is a "win" for the players.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:20 PM
  #733
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Some players will make out better, some will not of course. You can't say anything for certain. The extra years + buyouts + variance + changes to make whole + pension, the difference in salary lost. You have to wait and see. The players were losing no matter what in this deal relative to the last deal.
No there is something I can say with 100% certainty: the players, aside from the make whole, will get 50% of HRR. That is a certainty. This seems to be where you are confused. You seem to think that somehow the player "wins" in contract terms, buyouts and variance will somehow make up the money lost (both through lost games and damage to the brand). That is impossible, since they are all coming out of the same 50% of HRR assigned to the players. Its as simple as that.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:31 PM
  #734
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
My argument is that while I completely agree that the PA were able to get concessions in the final deal compared to the one offered in October. That does not make up for the following:

- Except for the changes to the "make whole" and pensions, none of the changes have any effect on how much money the players, collectively, will make over this CBA. All of the contracting issues simply modify how that agreed upon 50% is divvied up.

- Many of the "wins" for the players could have been negotiated (at leas partially) off the owners save the 82 game offer. It simply makes no sense that the owners would not have been more amenable to changes in contract lengths, variance etc (all issues, as I said above, that don't affect how much the players get) if they were able to get a full 82 game schedule in

- The combination of lost revenue from games lost, as well as the hit on future HRR from this lockout, is much greater than any monetary gain the players have made in the latest offer.

Can someone please explain where I am wrong? I honestly don't understand how anyone can claim this is a "win" for the players.
Owners offer was take it or leave it so they couldn't have negotiated off of it. The fine details were just as, if not more important than the money.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:35 PM
  #735
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,724
vCash: 772
Cheli, there's more issues than just dollars. Long term health of the PA was reliant on them getting contract term lengths they liked.

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:39 PM
  #736
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Owners offer was take it or leave it so they couldn't have negotiated off of it. The fine details were just as, if not more important than the money.
Not it wasn't. They specifically said that the "make whole" was negotiable, as were other smaller issues, just that the bones of the deal were not. Which, based on the deal that was finally agreed upon, seems to be accurate. The bones of the deal, from the owners side, was always 50/50 with some type of make whole and contract limitations to prevent cap-circumventing contracts. That is exactly what they got.

But for arguments sake, lets say that it was truly "take it or leave it", please explain to me even then how the players will make more money off of the agreed upon deal compared to the one in October. The only actual monetary gain for the players outside the 50/50 split was the make whole and pensions. Are you trying to tell me that $300 million of make whole (actually less, as BWC points out) and the owners funding pension shortfalls makes up for the money lost to date (not to mention the damage done to the brand going forward)? It makes no sense.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:46 PM
  #737
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
The players agreed to 50/50. The "make whole" has nothing to do with future players. Future players will be coming into a league who's growth has been severely hampered by this lockout (the degree to which remains to be seen). All the contract limitations are nice, but all that affects is how the 50% is divvied up among the players, not how much the players collectively get. The only argument you can make for the future players is the pension plan (which I am sure the owners would have addressed had the PA said it was an important issue in October).

I find it hard to believe the argument that whatever the future players may have gained via pensions (which I maintain the owners would have had no problem dealing with in October had the PA made it a priority) makes up for the money lost by this lockout and its effect on the brand. Future players would have been better served with a healthy league playing a full 82 game schedule and building on what they have built since 2004-5.
That's pretty speculative on your part about how much the brand has been hurt. The NHL is fueled by die hard fans that will come back just like they did last time. Plus they just signed a TV deal so the lockout won't effect future TV revenue

Illinihockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:46 PM
  #738
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IU Hawks fan View Post
Cheli, there's more issues than just dollars. Long term health of the PA was reliant on them getting contract term lengths they liked.
I keep hearing this and yet I have never had anyone actually explain how longer contracts and more variance somehow helps the players as a whole. Aside from the fact that it only affects a tiny % of players, any dollar gained by one player (either through variance or a longer term deal) is taked out of the pocket of another player. It is a zero sum game. The players only get 50% of HRR. If one player makes more money due to variance or through an extra year, it just means that there is that much less for the rest of his PA brothers to get.

If anything, having limitations on the contracts of young players and limited years should actually be desirable for the PA as a whole since the 50% would be more likely to go towards players that deserve it. To take it to the extreme, if players were only allowed to sign for 1 year at a time, their contract would best reflect their importance to their team and their true worth. Obviously, that is the extreme, and not at all what I am promoting, but illustrates the point that having a cap on contract lengths allows remuneration to more closely reflect a players importance. Every time a player like Scott Gomez signs a long term deal worth a ton of $$ it means that that much money is not available to the rest of his PA brothers over that entire term.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:46 PM
  #739
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,354
vCash: 500
Why do you keep talking about money, IT WAS MORE THAN MONEY!!!!!!!

The offer was non negotiable according to the top sources not hired by the league.

Hawkaholic is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:51 PM
  #740
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Again, explain to me how they will make more money. The bones of the deal are the same now as they were in October: 50/50 split plus a make whole (I realize that in the October proposal the make whole was taken out of the players share, but Daly said at the time that it was negotiable so it is reasonable to believe at least part, if not all, would have been outside the players share). All the contracting rights are nice, but again, they only effect how the player's 50% is divvied up, not how much they get.

I have yet to have anyone explain to me how the players can possibly make more money over the life of the CBA with this deal compared to if they had negotiated off the October offer from the owners.
How about you tell me why 5 year contracts were "the hill we'll die on" but actually were totally inconsequential to the NHL since they got their 50/50 split. If the only thing that matters is the 50/50 split then why did the NHL fight so hard on so many issues?

Plus the owners wanted a 60 mil cap in year 1 with a roll back of salaries. Now it's a 70 mil cap in year 1 and a 64 mil cap in year 2. Significantly more money, no?

Illinihockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:56 PM
  #741
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
That's pretty speculative on your part about how much the brand has been hurt. The NHL is fueled by die hard fans that will come back just like they did last time. Plus they just signed a TV deal so the lockout won't effect future TV revenue
Not really speculative at all. I am too lazy to look up the link, but at a certain point (I believe it was 62 games) the league lost a significant chunk of its corporate sponsorship revenue. Combine that with the gate receipts from games already lost and you have a significant amount of money. As for future years, you are right, it is speculative as far as how much this lockout will affect it, but it would be pretty hard to make an argument that it will not have a negative effect.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 01:58 PM
  #742
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
Why do you keep talking about money, IT WAS MORE THAN MONEY!!!!!!!

The offer was non negotiable according to the top sources not hired by the league.
This was all about money. On both sides. If it was about principle than the players would not have agreed to limitations on contract terms, limitation on variance, or 50/50 split. This was always about money.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 02:03 PM
  #743
Illinihockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 14,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelios View Post
Not really speculative at all. I am too lazy to look up the link, but at a certain point (I believe it was 62 games) the league lost a significant chunk of its corporate sponsorship revenue. Combine that with the gate receipts from games already lost and you have a significant amount of money. As for future years, you are right, it is speculative as far as how much this lockout will affect it, but it would be pretty hard to make an argument that it will not have a negative effect.
But HRR is used to figure the cap, and the cap has been set for next season already so loss of HRR doesn't hurt them this year, only lost wages do

Illinihockey is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 02:07 PM
  #744
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
How about you tell me why 5 year contracts were "the hill we'll die on" but actually were totally inconsequential to the NHL since they got their 50/50 split. If the only thing that matters is the 50/50 split then why did the NHL fight so hard on so many issues?
To be more specific, contract term limits were the "hill we'll die on", not necessarily 5 years. And the NHL got that. As for why the NHL fought so hard for them, there were a few reasons:

- Insurance. Owners can only insure contracts for 7 years at a time, and it was costing them an arm and a leg to insure beyond that

- Franchise re-sale. Having exorbitant contracts for long terms greatly effects the potential sale of a franchise as it adds a huge amount of liability.

- Trends. I forget the exact numbers, but the number of long term deals were growing at an extremely high rate, and the owners didn't want that to continue for all the reasons I am giving.

- Cap circumventing. While obviously variance is more important, having long term contracts leave the possibility of circumventing the cap.

- Competitive balance. The reason the NHL was insistent on 2 different limits (one for signing your own players and one for signing others) was to give small market teams some leverage in retaining their own players.

Quote:
Plus the owners wanted a 60 mil cap in year 1 with a roll back of salaries. Now it's a 70 mil cap in year 1 and a 64 mil cap in year 2. Significantly more money, no?
No. Any money paid over the players 50% share will be take back via escrow.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 02:11 PM
  #745
Chelios
Registered User
 
Chelios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinihockey View Post
But HRR is used to figure the cap, and the cap has been set for next season already so loss of HRR doesn't hurt them this year, only lost wages do
HRR is used to figure out the cap for the upcoming year. Once that year is over, the actual HRR for that year is calculated and any money paid to the players over and above 50% is paid back to the owners via escrow. Conversely, if it is calculated that the owners paid less than 50%, that money is paid back to the players with interest.

Chelios is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 02:16 PM
  #746
BobbyJet
Registered User
 
BobbyJet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Dundas, Ontario. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,209
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
Some players will make out better, some will not of course. You can't say anything for certain. The extra years + buyouts + variance + changes to make whole + pension, the difference in salary lost. You have to wait and see. The players were losing no matter what in this deal relative to the last deal.
Agreed. Was it worth it to bring in Fehr knowing this was going to happen and now close to half a season in wages are lost. Fans are pissed, sponsors are pissed, networks are pissed and the game has been set back who knows how much and for how long. A 50 - 50 deal was quite doable long before October 15.

BobbyJet is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 03:24 PM
  #747
Sir Psycho T
More Cowbell!
 
Sir Psycho T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawksFan74 View Post
If you are really that angry you need to reassess your overall lookout on things.


Why? The NHL and it's players screwed over thousands of people who work for them and told them we don't care about you at all. As Bob McKenzie said, everyone was talking about the owners and players, don't care it's millionaires arguing with billionaires over who gets the money of the fans, everyone forgot about the little people who make the league run. Those people who work for the team that aren't making 7 figures, the arena workers, and everyone else who relies on these guys to make a living, and who the NHL relies on to work, couldn't and they where hurt and many couldn't even get their kids Christmas presents. But who cares because hockey is back and therefore all is just forgiven. And I am the one who needs to reassess my overall lookout on things.

Sir Psycho T is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 04:01 PM
  #748
MadhouseOnMadison
Man crush on Amonte
 
MadhouseOnMadison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Why? The NHL and it's players screwed over thousands of people who work for them and told them we don't care about you at all. As Bob McKenzie said, everyone was talking about the owners and players, don't care it's millionaires arguing with billionaires over who gets the money of the fans, everyone forgot about the little people who make the league run. Those people who work for the team that aren't making 7 figures, the arena workers, and everyone else who relies on these guys to make a living, and who the NHL relies on to work, couldn't and they where hurt and many couldn't even get their kids Christmas presents. But who cares because hockey is back and therefore all is just forgiven. And I am the one who needs to reassess my overall lookout on things.
Have to agree here. Makes you wonder how these players can even look their equipment managers in the eye, and their trainers and other arena employees who they would normally interact with every day but instead they put those people out of work so that they could hold out for even more money that they think they're entitled to.

MadhouseOnMadison is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 04:11 PM
  #749
IU Hawks fan
They call me 'IU'
 
IU Hawks fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: No longer IU
Country: United States
Posts: 18,724
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadhouseOnMadison View Post
Have to agree here. Makes you wonder how these players can even look their equipment managers in the eye, and their trainers and other arena employees who they would normally interact with every day but instead they put those people out of work so that they could hold out for even more money that they think they're entitled to.
Well team employees like coaches, trainers, equipment managers, etc were still get paid. It's the arena staff that got the crap end of the stick.

And how many beer vendors do you think the players are interacting with on a daily basis?

IU Hawks fan is offline  
Old
01-06-2013, 04:22 PM
  #750
HawksFan74
Tread Lightly
 
HawksFan74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Psycho T View Post
Why? The NHL and it's players screwed over thousands of people who work for them and told them we don't care about you at all. As Bob McKenzie said, everyone was talking about the owners and players, don't care it's millionaires arguing with billionaires over who gets the money of the fans, everyone forgot about the little people who make the league run. Those people who work for the team that aren't making 7 figures, the arena workers, and everyone else who relies on these guys to make a living, and who the NHL relies on to work, couldn't and they where hurt and many couldn't even get their kids Christmas presents. But who cares because hockey is back and therefore all is just forgiven. And I am the one who needs to reassess my overall lookout on things.
This wasn't a shock to anyone. Everyone in the business had a pretty good idea this was coming. Guess what, people lose jobs all the times. I have read some stories about owners taking care of those employees.

If you're that offended you have the option not to be a fan, probably shouldn't watch any pro sports because this is the game.

HawksFan74 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 04:17 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.