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.

Differences Between the NHL's October 16th offer and current CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-07-2013, 03:37 PM
  #201
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I think that the number of issues that got better for the players in the final deal justifies how far off the October offer was from being a legitimate offer on the part of the owners.
I'm calling bull ****.

It wasn't the best the owners would accept, but to say it wasn't a legitimate offer is BS.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:38 PM
  #202
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
It's not just about money, it's about markets being able (or unable) to hold talent that would rather, if it had a choice, be elsewhere.

It's about players having a choice.

That's why it's important.
Lol, but thats the thing. For all the extra players that gained a "choice" theres a whole other slew of them that lose their "choice."

Basically the argument is do I prefer to get $40,000 or 2 cheques for 38k and 2k.

The whole point is to grow the game in the weakest markets. So ideally, the owners and the players should want a system that allows the weakest markets to keep their talent. Whether that has happened or not, i dont know.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:40 PM
  #203
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
The problem you have with assigning a better/worse comment is that in every given year, for some players its better while for others it worse.

ALL of the contracting rights, RFA, UFA, variance, contract length, etc. only change which players will get the money.

Pretty much the only figure that really matters is the 50% of HRR.
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?

Why didnt the league just take the victory as soon as the players accepted a 50/50 split which was long ago rather than fight for months on contract lengths, variance and moves on free agency?

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:40 PM
  #204
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Basically the argument is do I prefer to get $40,000 or 2 cheques for 38k and 2k.
To reiterate, it's not just about the money. And I completely reject the suggestion that "the whole point is to grow the game in weak markets". Completely, utterly, vehemently reject it.

A minor, secondary point? Sure. More than that? No way.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:41 PM
  #205
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?
Well, obviously, they weren't.

So either they changed their mind, or they were bluffing. Take your pick...

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:43 PM
  #206
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It was in the proposal, it goes in the chart. Are you disputing that the final deal is better, even if I were to put none there?
Oh, of course $300M is better than 0. But when we're analyzing how it stacks up against a $700M loss, a $300M gain is much less than a $500M gain. So it's the misleadingness of it.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:43 PM
  #207
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 15,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?

Why didnt the league just take the victory as soon as the players accepted a 50/50 split which was long ago rather than fight for months on contract lengths, variance and moves on free agency?
Because the contract rights weren't owners vs players, like many believe. They're for owners vs owners. The contract loopholes allowed the big market teams to offer huge front loaded deals that the small market teams couldn't compete with.

People really need to understand this.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:44 PM
  #208
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?

Why didnt the league just take the victory as soon as the players accepted a 50/50 split which was long ago rather than fight for months on contract lengths, variance and moves on free agency?
The players only accepted a true 50-50 split under the most recent negotiation session. Everything prior to that was 50-50*

But not directly related to your point.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:44 PM
  #209
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Well, obviously, they weren't.

So either they changed their mind, or they were bluffing. Take your pick...
I think that they wanted those contracting terms but that Daly was mostly bluffing. They probably hoped that the PA would start to become divided so that they could get the terms they want. They underestimated the resolve of the players, IMO. The 50/50 HRR agreement should have made a deal possible in a very short time. The last few weeks were a complete waste of time for both sides.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:44 PM
  #210
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?

Why didnt the league just take the victory as soon as the players accepted a 50/50 split which was long ago rather than fight for months on contract lengths, variance and moves on free agency?
Players didn't accept 50-50 months ago. They accepted 50-50 plus around $500M in make whole money, or honoring current contracts, however, you want to name it.

Here's the thing about contracting rights: the NHL can argue a tangible benefit, while the players can't argue a tangible loss (I'll grant them whatever psychic loss they want to claim). The tangible benefit the NHL would argue is that you have better competitive balance when big market teams can't buy up all the talent just by pushing more frontloaded deals. The total amount paid is the same, but the way that talent is spread around the league increases competitive balance, which in the NHL's eyes leads to a tangible increase in revenue.

The players enjoy the extra years somehow. But on average, they get paid nothing more or less. If you knew you would get paid the same for the next ten years regardless, but had the choice to negotiate your contract after 5 years or after 7 years, would that choice make a big difference to you? What if the right to negotiate again after 7 years cost you a couple million dollars as opposed to just doing it after 5?

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:45 PM
  #211
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
So why was the NHL willing to die on all these hills of more contract restrictions if the only figure that mattered was the HRR split?

Why didnt the league just take the victory as soon as the players accepted a 50/50 split which was long ago rather than fight for months on contract lengths, variance and moves on free agency?
Why? If i were to guess, its because the limitations on contract rules, make it very very difficult to build extremely strong teams, or in other words, to stack superstars.

The league has one goal, to grow revenue. And their best potential to grow revenue is to grow the weakest teams as they have the greatest potential. So how do you do that? By using the system to force a league with the greatest amount of parity possible.

For example, 5 yr contract limits. Players will always get 50% of HRR regardless of length of contracts. BUT, 5 yr limits, makes UFAs come to the market more often, so a greatly increased player movement possibility which we know from history is that player movement causes buzz in the town. (trade deadline and July 1st) are the most closely followed days in the nhl. Why? cause of the slight chance youll get a new great player to attract fans.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:48 PM
  #212
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
The league has one goal, to grow revenue. And their best potential to grow revenue is to grow the weakest teams as they have the greatest potential.
Disagree. The best potential for revenue growth is to move the weakest teams to strong, under-serverd markets.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:49 PM
  #213
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
To reiterate, it's not just about the money. And I completely reject the suggestion that "the whole point is to grow the game in weak markets". Completely, utterly, vehemently reject it.A minor, secondary point? Sure. More than that? No way.
Well thats your opinion. Im strictly of the opinion that the league and its owners want one thing, the most money possible.

But not only that, they want the most amount of "free" money possible, ie tv contracts. And the best way to do that is to gain national attention of the sport, getting big crowds in the southern markets. Thats how you get the big tv deal that essentially is free money for all of the owners.

You can reject it, but ill continue to believe that all people involved are looking out for their bottom dollar. And the best way is grow the weakest markets as they have the most potential for making EVERYONE, owners and players, significantly richer.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:52 PM
  #214
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Disagree. The best potential for revenue growth is to move the weakest teams to strong, under-serverd markets.
Well that depends. Are you suggesting something like moving Florida to say Quebec city?

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:53 PM
  #215
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Well thats your opinion. Im strictly of the opinion that the league and its owners want one thing, the most money possible.But not only that, they want the most amount of "free" money possible, ie tv contracts. And the best way to do that is to gain national attention of the sport, getting big crowds in the southern markets. Thats how you get the big tv deal that essentially is free money for all of the owners.

You can reject it, but ill continue to believe that all people involved are looking out for their bottom dollar. And the best way is grow the weakest markets as they have the most potential for making EVERYONE, owners and players, significantly richer.
No argument there about the owners wanting more money. And taking money out of the players share into their own share achieves that just as well as growing the game.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:55 PM
  #216
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
No argument there. And taking money out of the players share into their own share achieves that just as well as growing the game.
Yes, but so does restricting the rich owners. It allows the ability to grow the game. Reducing HRR makes it more difficult for rich owners.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 03:57 PM
  #217
Halibut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
Why? If i were to guess, its because the limitations on contract rules, make it very very difficult to build extremely strong teams, or in other words, to stack superstars.

The league has one goal, to grow revenue. And their best potential to grow revenue is to grow the weakest teams as they have the greatest potential. So how do you do that? By using the system to force a league with the greatest amount of parity possible.

For example, 5 yr contract limits. Players will always get 50% of HRR regardless of length of contracts. BUT, 5 yr limits, makes UFAs come to the market more often, so a greatly increased player movement possibility which we know from history is that player movement causes buzz in the town. (trade deadline and July 1st) are the most closely followed days in the nhl. Why? cause of the slight chance youll get a new great player to attract fans.
I'd question whether their plan actual does this since we dont see huge growth from the small market teams, since most growth seems to come from the larger markets or possibly changes in the valuation of the canadian dollar, but that is really secondary. Your initial claim was that the players fought for things that help some players while hurting others yet it's obvious that the owners were doing exactly the same thing. The teams that were handing out those huge front loaded contracts were happy with the system the way it was, fighting for those restrictions helped some teams but not all and overall the league was protected by escrow. Why do the owners get away with doing the same thing?

Halibut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:01 PM
  #218
EdAVSfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halibut View Post
I'd question whether their plan actual does this since we dont see huge growth from the small market teams, since most growth seems to come from the larger markets or possibly changes in the valuation of the canadian dollar, but that is really secondary. Your initial claim was that the players fought for things that help some players while hurting others yet it's obvious that the owners were doing exactly the same thing. The teams that were handing out those huge front loaded contracts were happy with the system the way it was, fighting for those restrictions helped some teams but not all and overall the league was protected by escrow. Why do the owners get away with doing the same thing?
Well some owners in this CBA will benefit while others will not.
The 50% of HRR means all owners benefit to different degrees.
But id argue that the extra player contract movements the players fought for will hurt the weaker markets than if the november 82 game season were accepted.

For everyone involved, owners and players, its a zero-sum game when it comes to the player rights. Some will be better off, and some will be worse off, when comparing november CBA offer and the actual CBA

The only real quantifiable gain and loss was going from 57% to 50%, no matter how you slice it. Gain for owners, and loss for players.

EdAVSfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:02 PM
  #219
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,014
vCash: 500
How much are contracting rights worth?

There's no model yet that can put a price tag on how much the contracting rights players won are worth. But since the players clearly lost money on the tangible money parts of the deal, it might help to think about how the value the intangible benefits.

Let's take just one example, the 5 to 7 year extension of contracts.
First, let's acknowledge the cost: to win the extension from 5 to 7 years, among other things, players sacrificed ~$700M in lost wages, which were offset by $300M in make whole money. So the players lost $400M net. Per player, let's ballpark that at $500,000.

Now, only about 12.5% of NHL players will ever see a contract longer than five years. So to make this fair and not leave any costs or benefits unaccounted for in our model, let's imagine that the one out of four players who get the benefit also experiences all the cost. So rather than losing $500,000, that player loses $4M.

Of course, the average payday for that player doesn't change at all, regardless of when the contract is negotiated (if we presumed that it did, we would also have to build into our model all of the other players whose average paydays decreased as a result). So to keep this simple, let's assume that player makes $6M/year every year for the next 10.

So our player's next ten years could look like Option 1:

Year 1: Make $6M.
Year 2: Make $6M.
Year 3: Make $6M.
Year 4: Make $6M
Year 5: Make $6M. Negotiate a contract, maybe move.
Year 6: Make $6M.
Year 7: Make $6M.
Year 8: Make $6M.
Year 9: Make $6M.
Year 10: Make $6M. Negotiate a contract, maybe move.

Or Option 2:

Year 1: Make $2M.
Year 2: Make $6M.
Year 3: Make $6M.
Year 4: Make $6M
Year 5: Make $6M.
Year 6: Make $6M.
Year 7: Make $6M. Negotiate a contract, maybe move.
Year 8: Make $6M.
Year 9: Make $6M.
Year 10: Make $6M.

The difference is all in when you do your negotiations, and losing $4M up front. If the difference in when you do your negotiations, and how often you have the chance of moving makes $4M worth of difference to you, then the player may have gotten back value worth what he lost monetarily.


Last edited by haseoke39: 01-07-2013 at 05:26 PM.
haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:12 PM
  #220
DyerMaker66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
This isn't quite accurate. The 211m wasn't a loss to the players, it was money that would have been re-distributed. Some lose, other gain.
So when we talk about revenue sharing, we don't say that it came out of the owner's share, and is thus a give on their part?

DyerMaker66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:17 PM
  #221
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
So when we talk about revenue sharing, we don't say that it came out of the owner's share, and is thus a give on their part?
Not in the context of how the owners v players game went. If the owners had dropped revenue sharing altogether, for example, you wouldn't say that was a loss to the players.

It is a concession by rich owners, you could say, to poor ones. And the Make whole provision would have been a concession by future players to present ones. But that doesn't change the landscape of how the players as a whole did v the owners.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:21 PM
  #222
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
If the owners had dropped revenue sharing altogether, for example, you wouldn't say that was a loss to the players.
I'm not sure all these features can be looked at in isolation, though. If the ramification of dropping revenue sharing is, for example, a maximum of 45% for the players share, then it would be a loss to the players.

  Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:22 PM
  #223
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,794
vCash: 712
Lets not forget that $300 million in make whole money - part of that overall amount is to account for contracts in the shortened 2012/13 season, which I'm sure will be pro-rated.

Stewie Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 04:26 PM
  #224
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,014
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I'm not sure all these features can be looked at in isolation, though. If the ramification of dropping revenue sharing is, for example, a maximum of 45% for the players share, then it would be a loss to the players.
Right. But you have to assume some other real money flows somewhere to get to that conclusion. And here we have $300M of real money flowing - not more, not less. So that's how you account it. That's how you take this piece out of isolation.

haseoke39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:22 PM
  #225
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Now, only about 25% of NHL players will ever see a contract longer than five years.
12.9% of the league currently has a contract over 5 years.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 05:57 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.