Buppy

I don't think that's certain. Considering growth after the last two lockouts, I wouldn't be too surprised to see revenues go either way.

Generally, if you're going to criticize someone for shady dealing, the shadiness has to benefit them in some way. What benefit do players get from having salary rolled back or deferred? At best, your argument excuses owners from blame, if players actually knew there would be a rollback. It doesn't actually place any fault on the players, unless I guess you want to criticize them for whining.

Not sure 'revenge' would be the right word, but I would guess it's semantics similar to the league's proposal. They call it 50%, but I'd assume it doesn't count any amount over that that is used to pay existing contracts. Just like the league's proposal calls the later years 50% when in fact part of that 50% is used to pay back what gets taken in the first few years. Both amount to the same thing: A higher percentage to start (even if only in money earned rather than actually payed), and falling from there. Same thing as most of the other proposals, just couched a bit differently.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they used two different revenue estimates, and that under the more conservative of the two, the provision doesn't work. The provision is bad enough even under decent growth conditions. It becomes much worse if growth is low. Basically stagnates total compensation for 4-7 years, and if the cost of benefits goes up, salaries have to go down to compensate.

I understand that, but also in their proposal is this: It's inconsistent. They use one estimate for the cap, and a different, more favorable, estimate explaining the make whole provision. Using the cap estimate in the make whole provision produces the shortfalls I listed. I know they are just estimates, and in the end actual revenue will be used. I was just pointing out the inconsistency and the fact that under the more conservative estimates, growth may not be enough to pay back what's lost at first.

I just checked using the NHLs 5% growth estimate, and my understanding of the "make whole" provision. Their math isn't consistent, or they're attempting some chicanery. Details per: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570 On one hand, when setting the cap, the league is estimating flat revenues for '12-13. $3.303B. In the "Make whole" provision they say 5% growth. But if starting year 1 revenue at $3.303B, the shortfalls they estimate would actually be year 2 and 3, and the year 1 shortfall would be $231M. Over six years, the deal falls short by $63M. ($442M lost in first 3 years, $379M gained in the last 3.) And the actual share percentages, assuming everything over $1.883B is used to repay the shortfalls, are: 57, 54.3, 51.7, 49.2, 46.9, and 44.7. If the deal was extended for the 7th year, the total shortfall would be recouped, and the actual player's share in year 7 would be 48.6%. Of course, actual growth probably won't be 5% (certainly not a consistent 5% each year), so the numbers would vary. In any case, ~$400M is a big chunk of change, and I would expect the players to want that separate from their share in future years. Doing so would raise the average share% to around 51.5-52%. edit: Important distinction: The shortfalls listed are from the $1.883B in compensation the players made last season; not from already-signed contracts for next year and beyond.

FYI, that's not how the cap is calculated. It's: (HRR * Share% - Benefits) / 30 + 8 (or -8 for the floor). We don't know exactly what benefits cost, but it doesn't make that big a difference. Using $3.3B the previously estimated ~$3.45B the $70.2M cap was based on for revenue would put the cap around $62M, but I've heard the league says $59.9M. Probably estimating a lower revenue (not surprising given they claim to have lost $100M from the pre-season). ~edit: Based on revenues staying flat, $3.3B However, I read that each team can still spend up to the previous $70M cap in the first year. I haven't seen any details on how they plan to handle the overage. They've said all existing contracts will be honored in full, but I'd guess they'll deduct the overage from future years. It's probably not really 50/50 across the board, more like a 54/50/49/49/49/49 kind of thing. Similar to the previous structures offered from both sides, just worded a bit differently. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see if the details come out. ~edit: Yes, overage will be deducted from the share in later seasons. Starting Nov. 2nd would mean a 23 week season, if they still end it in mid-April. Roughly 3.5 games / week. It's possible 5 games in 7 days could happen, but likely very rare. (Normal schedule was 26 weeks. A little over 3 games / week.)

They're trying to limit circumvention, so as long as someone is eating the cap hit, I'd say it's fine. I'd assume the cap hit would go with the player, even though the trading team still pays some of the salary. This would allow rich teams to dump bad cap hits, and allow poor teams to reach the floor without actually paying the salaries. Not quite as good as trading cap space or cash, but it does add a tool to help address the revenue disparity. It's probably my favorite part of the owner's proposal (assuming it would work the way I think, and owners would actually use it wisely).

If the 5 year limit goes through, top UFA prices will skyrocket. ~$12M cap hits for Getzlaf/Perry. That would probably drive up the price of 2nd-tier players too. Imagine $6-7M for Flip. On the other side, prices for UFAs in their 30s could come down to compensate, particularly those coming off down seasons, and prices for the majority of younger players should stay lower for a bit longer. Both factors could be good for the Wings, considering all our promising (but not "star") prospects and typical willingness to rely on aging vets.

My post wasn't about negotiating a new deal or not, it was about the specifics of what the owners were asking for. How they were trying to solve their issues, not that they were.

And I fail to see how that relates to anything in my post.

Costs (not including player compensation) have been going down relative to revenue. At least over the first 6 years of the previous CBA. Eight years ago, with the league as a whole losing money, the owners decided that 54% growing to 57% was good enough. Now, with the league as a whole making money and other costs having dropped relative to revenue, 54% and likely dropping from there with revenue growth isn't. Yeah, that makes sense.

http://www.scoresway.us/?sport=hockey&page=match&id=104275 Hank didn't play (unless under an assumed name). Brunner scored 2g, 2a. Looked impressive for the little bit I was able to watch. Except in the shootout, where he got poked checked attempting a 'Forsberg' and looked a bit silly.

So your stance now is, what? The players aren't actually wrong, but since their cause may be futile, we should still be pissed at them for fighting anyway? Just makes me more pissed at the owners for their abuse of power.

They're wrong because the solution to a problem they created shouldn't be to force someone else to solve it for them. They sure as hell shouldn't be looking to that solution for the second time in eight years. It's time for the owners to look at trying something other than taking money away from players. The problem isn't how much is being spent on players, it's mostly who's spending it. Owner's need to take responsibility for their poor decisions. Also, either there's not enough revenue sharing, or the payroll range is too narrow. The owners need to address one or the other. The top owners will likely lose around $300M if we lose the whole season. If instead they were to take half of that to help the teams that are struggling, we could get through this season. Then the next season, between the combination of revenue growth and lower salary commitments on existing contracts the player's share is lowered without requiring a rollback or escrow. Do that for a few years, and the share eventually gets down to a number the owners are more comfortable with. Combine that with increased revenue sharing or a wider range, and telling dumb owners there will be no more bailouts, and maybe we'll get the right teams spending the money and we won't need another lockout for the next CBA. But what the owners want is to beat down the players again, the top teams will lose their $300M, the other teams will still lose just as much or more than they would playing the season, the fans lose, the league loses future revenue, and even if the owners get what they want the same thing is likely to happen again in the future, because it reinforces the owner's mentality that they can correct any stupidity on their part by taking back from the players.

For the record, the NBA and NFL both take the players share from sport related revenue. Same thing as the NHL, with maybe some minor differences in the details. The major difference with the NBA is that the players can go over their share. It's a sliding scale from 49-51%, and it's possible for players to go 6% over that without any changes to revenue forecasts, cap, tax limit, etc. They can even go higher than that, but then they start changing things. From what I've read, it seems unlikely the players would go over by more than a small amount. They hold 10% in escrow, so team payrolls would have to be a larger amount than that over the cap. The other major difference is the NBA has half as many players. I think the NHL players would be fine with a lower share if their average salary more than doubled. The NFL has traditionally had a fairly weak union. The owners seem to roll over them pretty easily. Given the number of players, the massive revenues and the profit margins, you'd think the players would push harder for a better deal. The main difference is the amount of revenue. Like $9 billion in the NFL. I'm sure the NHL players would be thrilled with half of that. I have no problem with the NHL asking for a ~50% split, I just think they need to rely on revenue growth to get there instead of expecting it this year and rolling back salaries. From Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like the players mind that idea either, provided revenues grow fast enough.

They've been losing money pretty much every year. Team payroll around the middle of the pack mostly. Pegula just bought the team last year though, and they've gone bat s*** crazy on spending ever since. (Highest salary payroll in the league right now.) It doesn't seem like he's all too concerned about making a profit (at least right now); he just wants to build a good hockey team. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he just wants the season to start.

Your logic is flawed. 50% is only reasonable if you believe 52 and 48 to be equally unreasonable, but you can't determine that unless you already know 50 to be the "right" number.. You're using circular logic here. In essence saying "I know 50% is the fair number because both sides are equally wrong. I know both sides are equally wrong because they are both equally as far from the fair number." Same goes for who has "compromised more". In order to give equal weight to concessions made on either side, the starting points have to be equally far from an objective standard. By your logic, the worse the starting offer, the better the end result. It's a terrible negotiating strategy. Unfortunately it's what the owners decided to go with. (Though I do recognize, and in certain way appreciate, the symbolism of originally offering the players 43%.) Of course, there isn't any actual objective standard, and what's fair is basically whatever the players and owners agree is fair. But there is a true market value. And all the evidence we have suggest that it would substantially higher (probably around 10%) than even the 57% the players were getting. That value is destructive to the industry, largely because those setting the market are stupid. But actual logic would say that the correct value of the players would be as little below the market value as is needed to keep the industry stable. The numbers say 57% meets that criteria, or is maybe a little low (though some owner profit is required as an incentive). So again I say the owners should be grateful that the players are willing to go even lower (and much lower if revenues keep growing so significantly). I do want both sides to compromise. I just recognize the very sizable concession the players already made to get to 57%. Your starting point for the players should be around ~66%. By that standard, the players have come much further. Pretty much at the mid-point already, maybe even a bit under.

Not long ago you said 52% was reasonable. Obviously, you have no objective standard. It was your position from the very start that both sides would be wrong. I don't think it mattered in the least what anyone offered, nor what anyone might offer now. I think if the players came out tomorrow and offered 51%, but the owners only offered 48%, you'd be here the next day saying 49.5% sounds reasonable.

You should probably take your own advise. The owners offer is 49% the first year, 48% the 2nd, and 47% in the last four years. Over the life of the deal it's 47.5% assuming 0 revenue growth, and lowers toward 47 with any growth in those last four years. The players offer is a set $ amount in the first three years. Around $1.91, 1.98, and 2.1B respectively. Years 4 and 5 can vary depending on growth. To get a percentage, you have to estimate growth. Low growth (4% or less) would put it around 56%, high growth (8% or more) would put it under 52%. Most likely falling somewhere in between that range.

I don't see how you can, again, fail to understand what I said. Fehr has been a part of several CBA negotiations (prior to this year) in MLB. 1990, 1994, 2002, and 2006. Three of those were resolved without missing any games. Fehr = 3. Bettman has been a part of two CBA negotiations, both of which resulted in lockouts. Both lockouts resulted in lost games. He has not yet been a part of any successful (0 games lost) negotiation. Bettman = 0. And for the record, I am putting pretty much all the blame for this lockout on the league's shoulders. Also, the owner's latest offer was around 47.5%, not 49.

You misunderstand. I mean that 3 times Fehr has been a leader in CBA negotiations that were resolved without a lockout or strike that resulted in lost games. Something Gary has not managed to do yet. (Fehr 3 - Bettman 0) Unless you're suggesting that in the next few days Fehr will be fired, a new CBA reached, and this NHL season will be a full 82 games...

To be fair to Gary, he's only had two chances so far, and the first time he was over-ruled by some owners who broke ranks so it shouldn't count. Fehr does lead 3-0 in negotiations settled without losing any games.

Yes, a hard cap would be illegal. It's wage fixing. For that matter, any agreement between two or more teams to place any limits at all on player compensation of any type (salary, term, benefits, etc.) would be illegal collusion. Any team on its own could decide on whatever limits they want, but they couldn't make any agreements with other teams. NHL owners have pretty well proven that in a true open market they will spend themselves into the poorhouse. MLB owners got busted for collusion in the mid-80s. During the recent NBA lockout, the players union more or less dissolved itself in order to open the door for an anti-trust suit against the owners. A couple cases were actually filed, but a new CBA was reached before they went anywhere.

There is no actual "pro sports anti-trust exemption". MLB was exempt until 1998, but now it's a limited exemption. The NFL has a limited exemption as well. The Clayton Act contained a labor exemption, which basically made unions exempt from anti-trust liability. That exemption was used to derive the Non-Statutory Labor Exemption. That basically says that a CBA takes precedence over anti-trust laws. i.e. A CBA can contain terms that would otherwise violate labor laws. Since that exemption requires a CBA, and a CBA requires a union...the union is in fact entirely necessary. Without the union agreeing to the hard cap, half or more of the league's teams would likely have gone bankrupt by now.