HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Jan 6/13: CBA reached to end the Lockout. Rejoice! (Post#783)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-20-2012, 06:01 PM
  #601
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
The revenue sharing numbers are wrong in that article, apparently. The 4.5% represents only the actual revenue sharing number (150 million) and ignores the TV deals (350-ish million) and other shared revenue like merchandising. The rest of the article is very good though, even if that error diminishes the impact of the writer's point.

The NHL should at least be on par with the NBA in terms of revenue sharing. The league is making money, so they can't cry poor.
RS is pretty misleading. It really needs to be about net revenue distribution from rich to poor. If TO, Mon, NY, Detroit, Philly and Vancouver give 20m to each other you get $600m in revenue sharing yet nothing changes.

me2 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 06:12 PM
  #602
Timmer44
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Van City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,196
vCash: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
RS is pretty misleading. It really needs to be about net revenue distribution from rich to poor. If TO, Mon, NY, Detroit, Philly and Vancouver give 20m to each other you get $600m in revenue sharing yet nothing changes.
Umm, what? That's not how it works.

The NBA has "revenue sharing" on a scale.


Last edited by Timmer44: 12-20-2012 at 06:26 PM. Reason: Meant NBA, not NFL
Timmer44 is offline  
Old
12-20-2012, 07:25 PM
  #603
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,605
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmer44 View Post
Umm, what? That's not how it works.

The NBA has "revenue sharing" on a scale.
I'm just pointing out raw RS numbers are misleading unless you factor in how that revenue is raised and how it is distributed.

According to the Sports Business Journal, the NBA is going to fully phase in a revenue-sharing plan in 2013-14 which:

* “calls for all teams to contribute an annually fixed percentage, roughly 50 percent, of their total annual revenue, minus certain expenses such as arena operating costs, into a revenue sharing pool.”

* will shift extra $140 million around the league

* will allow a single team to receive up to $16 million (this year the most any team could receive was $5.8 million), a mark that is about 25 percent of this year’s payroll cap


Whole bunch of tweaks since that came out but the basics still apply (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q24)) With the new plan, $181 million is projected to be redistributed in 2013-14, with two teams projected to receive over $20 million each, and seven teams over $16 million each.

By tipping it all into a giant vat of cash and then every team get the and equal share you see rich teams sending money to poor teams but also to other rich teams and even to themselves. Their bucket of money taken out is going to be less than put in, and that's the key point: it's not the total amount of money in vat that matters but the differences between what teams put in and take out. For example net effect above is a $181m redistribution on $5b revenue or 3.6%.

I don't know enough about the NHL's new plan but it is roughly $220m on $3.3b - but without knowing how much of that $220m came from the teams receiving it (ie pointless paying themselves) I can't get a workable redistribution figure.


Perhaps the best way forward is the "nhlationalising" all TV (example) rights to the NHL head office. This would require a billion or two in compensation to be paid to the Leafs and other teams with great TV contracts but it might be worth it. The hard bit would be getting that past the players because they would lose in the short term as the league would likely fund it by reducing hockey revenue. $3.3b in revenue - $300m to TML = $3b for hockey teams/players to split. The owners pick up the $300m bill but with 50% split that's still $150m the players don't get.

It's great plan, it just requires both sides to think ahead and be prepared to take a hit for 3 or 4 years, after that the TV deals that are now following to the NHL should take care of everything.


Last edited by me2: 12-20-2012 at 07:39 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-21-2012, 12:01 PM
  #604
brownbello
Registered User
 
brownbello's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Powell River
Country: Canada
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
I'm not in a whose fault is it camp. Just generally disappointing I'm not watching NHL hockey. But I thought that I'd post this video because I think O'Leary is hilarious in his observations of these negotiations.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/watch/Sports.../ID=2319875881

brownbello is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 09:26 AM
  #605
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,212
vCash: 500
Seems like the owners are starting to get serious now...finally. This movement should go a long way to getting a deal done.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 11:16 AM
  #606
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Seems like the owners are starting to get serious now...finally. This movement should go a long way to getting a deal done.
doubt it will be on time for a shortened season.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 11:25 AM
  #607
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,983
vCash: 50
Jeez, this is cutting it close to the deadline.
Both sides better be negotiating non-stop, 24/7, until they reach an agreement. I'm sure Tim Hortons would give them free coffee.


It still seriously pisses me off that the NHL has decided to play chicken for this long. They could have actually negotiated (instead of saying "take it or leave it") over a month ago.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 11:27 AM
  #608
kthsn
Registered User
 
kthsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,716
vCash: 1785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Seems like the owners are starting to get serious now...finally. This movement should go a long way to getting a deal done.
I think Fehr rejects this deal too and tries to squeeze a little more. New CBA signed in early January and the season starts late Jan/early Feb. Hopefully 50 games?

Either way I'm confident a deal with get done the two sides are too close.

kthsn is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:42 PM
  #609
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I think Fehr rejects this deal too and tries to squeeze a little more. New CBA signed in early January and the season starts late Jan/early Feb. Hopefully 50 games?

Either way I'm confident a deal with get done the two sides are too close.
Someone brought this up in another thread, and I think it makes a lot of sense. The players knew they were going to have to make concessions this year, but the question was, how much? It seems that Fehr has convinced them that they are not going to see the NHLs best offer till the season hangs in the balance (so sometime close to the Jan 14th deadline). That offer will come and the players will accept and in doing so give up as little as possible.

But I think this could backfire if this deadline passes and nothing is done. The offers are going to go back to square one and the PA is going to get screwed

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:43 PM
  #610
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kthsn View Post
I think Fehr rejects this deal too and tries to squeeze a little more. New CBA signed in early January and the season starts late Jan/early Feb. Hopefully 50 games?

Either way I'm confident a deal with get done the two sides are too close.
Well, Fehr will look a bit like a tool if he can't swing something here after saying how they were "very close" to a deal last time. The owners have moved somewhat and if they are going to save the season they're coming down to the wire. They may not accept this deal outright, but I think they have enough here where they can "tinker" and make something work out of it.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 12:50 PM
  #611
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,983
vCash: 50
One thing that bugs me is that the NHL seems to not want to budge on the $60 mil salary cap next season.
There are going to be a lot of stressed out GMs trying to free up cap space.

I think they should lower it to $65 mil for 2013/14, and then $62.5 mil for 2014/15, and $60 mil for 15/16. (or just jump down to $60 mil in 2014/15)

Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 02:13 PM
  #612
Reverend Mayhem
Freeway's closed man
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,873
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Well, Fehr will look a bit like a tool if he can't swing something here after saying how they were "very close" to a deal last time. The owners have moved somewhat and if they are going to save the season they're coming down to the wire. They may not accept this deal outright, but I think they have enough here where they can "tinker" and make something work out of it.
Maybe not in the next 3-4 days, but I think this is the breaking point in getting a deal done.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 02:20 PM
  #613
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Maybe not in the next 3-4 days, but I think this is the breaking point in getting a deal done.
I'm betting they'll have something figured out before the end of next weekend...they'll need to get everyone back, have a quick week or so camp and get games going before the end of January. They are too close to fail now. They already look like a bunch of baboons.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 02:48 PM
  #614
Cocoa Crisp
Registered User
 
Cocoa Crisp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NYC
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 2,755
vCash: 500
Can someone with more familiarity fill me in on just how bad 'cap recapture advantage' will be for us vis a vis Luongo?

Also: with the cap expected to drop to 60M in '13-'14, who gets cut? Lu's contract could really comeback to haunt us absent a buyout. Certainly Ballard would be gone to make room for Edler. Probably Booth as well.

It would also likely mean Tanev is a lock and Corrado will get a long hard look as will Schroeder.

This is assuming, of course, that the latest offer is a viable framework upon which to bridge the difference for both sides.


Last edited by Cocoa Crisp: 12-28-2012 at 03:18 PM. Reason: more random thoughts
Cocoa Crisp is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 04:30 PM
  #615
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,375
vCash: 500
"The hill we die on"

Uh huh.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:01 PM
  #616
cooker24
Registered User
 
cooker24's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
"The hill we die on"

Uh huh.
It's too bad, too. That would have been awesome for hockey fans. More player movement with a two-year length advantage for current teams/small market teams to compete. The new breakdown at six and seven years takes away from all of that.

The NHLPA still won't accept... Their thought process will be "they're cracking... let's see what more we can get" and then they'll publicly announce that they're happy the NHL is taking negotiations seriously meanwhile they're doing the exact opposite. Man, I wish this would just end and not because I want hockey to start.

cooker24 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:04 PM
  #617
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
"The hill we die on"

Uh huh.
Same as the last 3 times we heard "this is our best offer! They are only going to get worse the later we go." or "The offer is off the table!"...Fehr has done a pretty good job (so far) of calculating the resolve of the owners. This really doesn't look good for Bettman...will be interesting to see if he survives this.

Canucker is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:08 PM
  #618
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cooker24 View Post
It's too bad, too. That would have been awesome for hockey fans. More player movement with a two-year length advantage for current teams/small market teams to compete. The new breakdown at six and seven years takes away from all of that.

The NHLPA still won't accept... Their thought process will be "they're cracking... let's see what more we can get" and then they'll publicly announce that they're happy the NHL is taking negotiations seriously meanwhile they're doing the exact opposite. Man, I wish this would just end and not because I want hockey to start.
I disagree. I think a certain amount of parity is fine, but I don't want all of the competitive "imbalance" removed. I like that well-run teams in good markets have an easier time re-signing players. I don't care to make it easier on other teams. Just as a rule I don't like the idea of providing mechanisms beyond "run your team well" that encourages players to stay with a franchise. Plus it leads to all sorts of stupid sign-and-trade deals like you see in the NBA.

I'd love to see the ceiling/floor move apart further and cap space be traded (within limits).

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:13 PM
  #619
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Same as the last 3 times we heard "this is our best offer! They are only going to get worse the later we go." or "The offer is off the table!"...Fehr has done a pretty good job (so far) of calculating the resolve of the owners. This really doesn't look good for Bettman...will be interesting to see if he survives this.
He judged more than the resolve, though. Fehr's biggest strength was not using the sort of over-hyped rhetoric the league has, which would have allowed the league to more successfully smear him. Instead he just stayed reasonable, tried to undercut the league's position, and has waited them out until their actual drop dead date (or so it appears).

Players are still giving up a lot, but they've done a decent job of trying to lessen the impact, which will serve them well in future rounds of negotiating.

One thing I don't understand is... if a player buyout counts against the player's revenue share, why limit it to only the 2013 summer? Why not have it an option for 1 contract every summer? The money will be eaten back by escrow if it happens too often, so the league has no discernible benefit from limiting it to a one-off.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:46 PM
  #620
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,605
vCash: 50
[QUOTE=Proto;56877935]He judged more than the resolve, though. Fehr's biggest strength was not using the sort of over-hyped rhetoric the league has, which would have allowed the league to more successfully smear him. Instead he just stayed reasonable, tried to undercut the league's position, and has waited them out until their actual drop dead date (or so it appears).

Players are still giving up a lot, but they've done a decent job of trying to lessen the impact, which will serve them well in future rounds of negotiating.[quote]

Bettman has also put in a nice move just before court dates to muddy the water without giving up much (just 1 year and a bit of variance) while getting the players to pay for the the buyouts via HRR split (which it is).

Both sides need to get around.

Quote:
One thing I don't understand is... if a player buyout counts against the player's revenue share, why limit it to only the 2013 summer? Why not have it an option for 1 contract every summer? The money will be eaten back by escrow if it happens too often, so the league has no discernible benefit from limiting it to a one-off.
cap evasion would rampant since these buyouts aren't linked to the cap.


Last edited by me2: 12-28-2012 at 05:53 PM.
me2 is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 05:50 PM
  #621
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,694
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
He judged more than the resolve, though. Fehr's biggest strength was not using the sort of over-hyped rhetoric the league has, which would have allowed the league to more successfully smear him. Instead he just stayed reasonable, tried to undercut the league's position, and has waited them out until their actual drop dead date (or so it appears).

Players are still giving up a lot, but they've done a decent job of trying to lessen the impact, which will serve them well in future rounds of negotiating.

One thing I don't understand is... if a player buyout counts against the player's revenue share, why limit it to only the 2013 summer? Why not have it an option for 1 contract every summer? The money will be eaten back by escrow if it happens too often, so the league has no discernible benefit from limiting it to a one-off.
That comment is such a farce. Fixing blatant loop holes within a CBA and bringing it down to the industry average is not giving up the world. It's a shame that it's taken this long for the NHL to get the NHLPA to try and have any relevant discussion.

Edonator is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 06:01 PM
  #622
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
That comment is such a farce. Fixing blatant loop holes within a CBA and bringing it down to the industry average is not giving up the world. It's a shame that it's taken this long for the NHL to get the NHLPA to try and have any relevant discussion.
"industry standard"


Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 06:01 PM
  #623
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
cap evasion would rampant since these buyouts aren't linked to the cap.
Yes, they are. The buyouts will be taken out of the player's share of the 50% of revenue, so if there were a lot of buyouts, the rest of the league would pay for it in escrow.

Proto is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 06:06 PM
  #624
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,983
vCash: 50
I'm kind of curious how the ability to trade cap space will work out.
I'm sure there will be a limit to how much you can trade away/acquire, or else some teams could really abuse it.

And it'll be interesting to see how much teams will value a little extra cap space. A 2nd round pick for $3 mil?

Nuckles is offline  
Old
12-28-2012, 06:13 PM
  #625
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,953
vCash: 500
The players won't accept this deal.

One buyout per team won't count against the cap but will count against HRR, affecting future cap hits. The NHLPA wanted compliance buyouts to come from outside the system. Contract length limits have moved up a year, but if re-signing teams can hand out 7 years, why are other teams limited to 6? It creates an un-even playing field and will lead to sign-and-trades, adding a restricted element to unrestricted free agency. This offer has a 10 year CBA with a mutual buyout at 8. The NHLPA last offered a 8 year deal with an opt-out at 6. The $300M is back on the table, but the owners should be honoring contracts they signed anyway.

Quote:
Can someone with more familiarity fill me in on just how bad 'cap recapture advantage' will be for us vis a vis Luongo?
Under the last NHL proposal, any contract longer than 5 years would have this. If a player on a long-term deal retires before the end of his deal, the signing team would be on the hook for his cap hit. That way the NHL gets its HRR share back after paying $10M and having a $6M cap hit at the beginning of the deal. It's a retroactive punishment for deals that complied with the rules at the time the deals were signed. For the Canucks, it would mean having $5.3M less cap space per year until the end of his deal if Luongo retires before the end of his contract.

Quote:
I think they should lower it to $65 mil for 2013/14, and then $62.5 mil for 2014/15, and $60 mil for 15/16. (or just jump down to $60 mil in 2014/15)
With predicted revenue growth, say 5% or $3.5M cap hit per year, after a few years they'd be back around $70M anyway. Make whole is supposed to be the bridge until they get back there.

Hammer79 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 04:11 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.