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.
Players and Owners reach an agreement (MOD: circa 5am ET 1/6/13)
Maybe I'm wrong about this but make whole was on the table back in October at 211,000? It was increased to 300,000 in early December. In fact the make whole and CBA term did not change but yet Fehr put up this big flair and forced the players to negotiate a 5 year CBA length. Wasted time.
I think you might be wrong. By my recollection, there was no make whole money offered by the league in October - although Gary very pointedly said he would negotiate the make whole and the union never took him up on it. In early November, about $100M in make whole money was put on the table. By the time the players and owners only meeting rolled around in mid-December, it was $300M, and I think it stuck there.
So yes, wasted time in that they lost more than they gained, but I think the $300M was all officially gotten after October.
Concessionary bargaining was all the players could do- come away as best as you can. But as a Toronto writer said yesterday, the NHL better not come back in 8 or 10 years *****ing and moaning that the players are making too much and its hurting the economically lower end teams. Enough is enough. If a team isn't viable, move it somewhere where it will be or get rid of it. And hopefully the best result out of this fiasco is that we won't have to watch Bettman for the next 8 or 10 years tell everybody how wonderful everything is only to pull a reversal when its convenient. He'll be gone within the year.
Easy: take such a big cut out of paychecks through escrow that the league can make a 60M cap - an effective rollback in year 1, while allowing everybody to keep the contracts they have on the books. Otherwise, I don't understand how the 60M cap even comes into play.
But why even mention the 60M cap then? 60M cap is an estimation but if it doesn't any real relevance, why mention it?
Like I think you agreed on the other thread, it's because of makewhole money.
The difference between 60M and 70.2M caps is the amount that gets funded through the makewhole fund the first year so it's a mechanism to distribute the 300M (or 250M) makewhole fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39
What I've heard reported is that the players "Get the higher of 50% OR $64.3M." That implies to me that if 50% is lower than 64.3M, then 50% isn't relevant.
Yes. Players get the higher of the two, meaning there's more room to sign new contracts (which players have to pay through bigger escrow payments)
Easy: take such a big cut out of paychecks through escrow that the league can make a 60M cap - an effective rollback in year 1, while allowing everybody to keep the contracts they have on the books. Otherwise, I don't understand how the 60M cap even comes into play.
What I've heard reported is that the players "Get the higher of 50% OR $64.3M." That implies to me that if 50% is lower than 64.3M, then 50% isn't relevant.
I think if somehow 50% leads to a cap higher than $64.3 (the fans absolutely love being abused if that happens), the cap will be whatever 50% is, otherwise the cap will be $64.3M
either way the league will use escrow to ensure the players share is only 50%
Huh? World Cup with NHL rules is much better than Olympics with IIHF rules.
Olympics always offer better quality hockey due to the time of the year and because North Americans aren't always the home teams. Quality of hockey in the last World Cup was very poor, so many players in poor form, banged up, coming out of surgery or desperately in need of one.
Olympics always offer better quality hockey due to the time of the year and because North Americans aren't always the home teams. Quality of hockey in the last World Cup was very poor, so many players in poor form, banged up, coming out of surgery or desperately in need of one.
Okay, I'll give you that the timing of World Cup in september was crappy.
But if I had to choose World Cup with NHL rules and Olympics with IIHF rules both in february, I'd easily choose the former.
But why even mention the 60M cap then? 60M cap is an estimation but if it doesn't any real relevance, why mention it?
Like I think you agreed on the other thread, it's because of makewhole money.
The difference between 60M and 70.2M caps is the amount that gets funded through the makewhole fund the first year so it's a mechanism to distribute the 300M (or 250M) makewhole fund.
I didn't say they fund the entirety out of "make whole." The make whole fund is supposed to only cover less than half the cost of actually making whole, so it would make sense if they actually adjust what gets literally paid out down to $60M through escrow, then refund only a piece of that through "make whole" money.
Quote:
Yes. Players get the higher of the two, meaning there's more room to sign new contracts (which players have to pay through bigger escrow payments)
Here's why I don't agree with your reading of things: it only makes sense to name a nominal cap in the first full year of the deal, when you don't have new HRR numbers to build your projection off of. But every year thereafter, there shouldn't be a nominal value for the cap stipulated unless it is one that would conflict with and take precedence over the one arrived at through normal HRR projections. So we'll have to wait and see which of us is right, but I don't read these reports as saying the same thing you do.
Concessionary bargaining was all the players could do- come away as best as you can. But as a Toronto writer said yesterday, the NHL better not come back in 8 or 10 years *****ing and moaning that the players are making too much and its hurting the economically lower end teams. Enough is enough. If a team isn't viable, move it somewhere where it will be or get rid of it. And hopefully the best result out of this fiasco is that we won't have to watch Bettman for the next 8 or 10 years tell everybody how wonderful everything is only to pull a reversal when its convenient. He'll be gone within the year.
I'm sure most would agree with that. The league left way too many holes in the last CBA and had to plug the holes. but now at 50-50 and the holes plugged for the most part there shouldn't be any excuses. If any teams can't cut the mustard...it's time to go.
Okay, I'll give you that the timing of World Cup in september was crappy.
But if I had to choose World Cup with NHL rules and Olympics with IIHF rules both in february, I'd easily choose the former.
I'd choose Olympics in a heartbeart due varying hosts which means decent game times or us Finns from time to time. And let's be reality, there's not a huge difference between the NHL and IIHF rules anymore even though the constant ref complainers like to think. Olympics would still have NHL refs anyway, so we wouldn't have to tolerate the likes of Alex Dell.
While that much is obvious, according to Crease's summary there (not sure what his source is on that) suggests that re-alignment won't happen until 14-15, if I'm reading that right...which is beyond ridiculous...
I should have chosen my words better HC. It should be interpreted as "no decision regarding realignment has been made for 2012 or 2013 YET." Doesn't exclude the possibility of realignment before next season.
I didn't say they fund the entirety out of "make whole." The make whole fund is supposed to only cover less than half the cost of actually making whole, so it would make sense if they actually adjust what gets literally paid out down to $60M through escrow, then refund only a piece of that through "make whole" money.
Well, I guess we have to wait some smart journalist to dig the info for us. My prediction is that Nick Kypreos won't be the one doing that
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39
Here's why I don't agree with your reading of things: it only makes sense to name a nominal cap in the first full year of the deal, when you don't have new HRR numbers to build your projection off of. But every year thereafter, there shouldn't be a nominal value for the cap stipulated unless it is one that would conflict with and take precedence over the one arrived at through normal HRR projections. So we'll have to wait and see which of us is right, but I don't read these reports as saying the same thing you do.
It makes sense for the players, in some way.
If the revenues fall short to give the players a 64.3M cap, GMs have less room for new contracts right?
With 64.3M cap no matter what the revenues, players ensure that GMs have atleast that much to spend on new contracts. Players get exactly the same amount of money regardless of 50% or 64.3M because higher cap will mean higher escrow payments.
But it matters to those players who don't have a contract next summer. The lower the cap, the less those players get. The higher the cap, the more those players will get. Players who have contracts running through 13-14 pay the difference through escrow (minus the money the players who sign new contracts pay through the escrow).
Concessionary bargaining was all the players could do- come away as best as you can. But as a Toronto writer said yesterday, the NHL better not come back in 8 or 10 years *****ing and moaning that the players are making too much and its hurting the economically lower end teams. Enough is enough. If a team isn't viable, move it somewhere where it will be or get rid of it. And hopefully the best result out of this fiasco is that we won't have to watch Bettman for the next 8 or 10 years tell everybody how wonderful everything is only to pull a reversal when its convenient. He'll be gone within the year.
For sure. Hockey is not a viable sport if they have the same problems in 10 years.
Concessionary bargaining was all the players could do- come away as best as you can. But as a Toronto writer said yesterday, the NHL better not come back in 8 or 10 years *****ing and moaning that the players are making too much and its hurting the economically lower end teams. Enough is enough. If a team isn't viable, move it somewhere where it will be or get rid of it. And hopefully the best result out of this fiasco is that we won't have to watch Bettman for the next 8 or 10 years tell everybody how wonderful everything is only to pull a reversal when its convenient. He'll be gone within the year.
I assume teams won't be allowed to trade or sign players until a new CBA is signed. Will they be allowed to negotiate with GMs/agents until that happens?
I'm sure most would agree with that. The league left way too many holes in the last CBA and had to plug the holes. but now at 50-50 and the holes plugged for the most part there shouldn't be any excuses. If any teams can't cut the mustard...it's time to go.
Who says its on the teams? They still haven't fixed revenue sharing the way they should have, and these are the same guys that designed the last two CBAs, and we somehow think they've put together a bulletproof plan for survival?
I'm happy hockey is back, my job rides on it, but I can't help but feel like we're just lined up to do this **** in 8 years again.
Olympics always offer better quality hockey due to the time of the year and because North Americans aren't always the home teams. Quality of hockey in the last World Cup was very poor, so many players in poor form, banged up, coming out of surgery or desperately in need of one.
As a North American I prefer the world cup idea. Games in my time zone and no interruption to the NHL season. Being outside of North American time zones would definitely change my opinion though
I'd choose Olympics in a heartbeart due varying hosts which means decent game times or us Finns from time to time. And let's be reality, there's not a huge difference between the NHL and IIHF rules anymore even though the constant ref complainers like to think. Olympics would still have NHL refs anyway, so we wouldn't have to tolerate the likes of Alex Dell.
Game times in Finland don't make the hockey played any better or worse.
I prefer the NHL rules greatly, I don't want players thrown out of games for every accidental hit in the head.
I love how the American media outlets are treating this about as news-worthy as what Andrew Luck is having for breakfast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME
I love how the American media outlets are treating this about as news-worthy as what Andrew Luck is having for breakfast.
NHL/players reach tentative deal is the first headline on ESPN.com
"NHL lockout comes to an end" front page of yahoo sports surrounded by football
"Tentative NHL CBA reached" 1/3 main headlines on CBS sports frontpage
EDIT: literally just turned to sportscenter and they are talking about the lockout lol
yes hockey is a niche sport in America, yes its going to take a backseat to NFL playoff games today
but where is the media not covering it stuff coming from?
Last edited by DeadPuckEraSurvivor: 01-06-2013 at 11:12 AM.
