Buppy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/globe-on-hockey/measuring-the-nhl-nhlpa-divide-oh-about-1-billion/article4541634/ gives a pretty good breakdown. The PA doesn't want salary rollbacks. I think it's more about the principle than the actual dollars, as already the share for the first year would almost certainly have to be pro-rated to whatever length of season is salvaged. There's really no room to give any more back in the first year. More room in future years, since there's less salary already committed. But even with moderate 5% revenue growth, the PA proposal would mean a profit margin of around 5-6% for the owners. Already plenty fair.

Or the fans would be even more mad because the sides had been arguing for 9 months without reaching an agreement. Also, both sides could have been worse off due to all the bad blood simmering for 9 months...

Big beneficiary? Prior to the last lockout, the players were getting 66% of all revenues. Those revenues rose nearly 50%, but player salaries rose less than 27%. But somehow the players are the big winners from the last lockout? Players are employees, so they're always going to "win" as long as they have a job, but don't even try to suggest they're making more than they would have been if they'd been able to defeat the hard cap. The revisionist history is ridiculous. The owners are acting like 57% is some obscenely unfair split, like the players held a gun to their heads to get that deal. It was the owners idea, and the numbers say even that split still leaves a decent profit margin. The owners asking players to take ANOTHER pay cut, when the league as a whole is profitable, is beyond ridiculous. It's retarded, and demonstrates just how little the owners value their most valuable asset. If, that's IF, the floor is a problem for too many teams, then the owners need to come up with a better way to solve that issue without taking from the players. The floor in 06 was around 74% of the midpoint. Now it's 87%. If they used a precentage instead of a fixed amount, the floor now would be around $46M. Pretty close to where it would be if the owners get the split they want. Problem solved without taking from the players. Owners should be thankful that players are willing to slow their salary growth to take a lower percentage. Instead they want an NFL split. If it were me, I'd say they can have it when they have NFL revenue. I'm sure the PA would be happy with 47% of $9 billion.

As has been stated, it is much more difficult for the players to negotiate during the season, when they are trying to focus on doing their jobs. Also, let's not act like there was any urgency from the owners. Did they submit an offer? Did they try to schedule any meetings? It's not like the PA offices are located in some secret lair. Had they actually been urgent, they would have at least sent an offer. Neither side was worried about the timetable. That is a fact.

So you mean the PA could be partially to blame? I hate it when people talk about greed. Would any of you walk up to a player on the street and demand that they give you $1 million, or $23 million from an owner, or half that from one of each? Would you label them greedy bastards if they refused? Aren't we as fans being just as greedy in demanding to be entertained regardless of what either side would have to give up? Their greed doesn't bother me in the slightest. I only expect them to be reasonable, and for owners to take some responsibility for their poor business decisions and lack of foresight.

FYI: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 is the PAs second (and most recent) proposal. Details of the first were never all that clear, but it seems the first three years were very similar (maybe identical), but the first had a 4th year at 57% instead of the two years described in that link. The owners initial offer was well documented, their second was reportedly mostly the same, but changed the players share to 46%. Their last offer has few details, other than it was "simplified". Revenue split is also given in the link above. However, according to Bettman, that offer was taken off the table when the lockout started so the details don't really matter. The PA has made two proposals. The 2nd was around ~2% less than the first. (Hard to say for sure, since the players are asking for a set $ amount rather than a set %. The % will depend on actual growth.) The owners have made 3 proposals. The last around 5% higher than the first, though really it was the only one that was at least somewhat realistic. Also, it is supposed to be off the table now.

A big enough concession from the players would result in the owners making more money, even when factoring in the cost of the lockout. Obviously, the owners are confident they will get that concession.

One note on the negotiations: The two sides meeting with each other is much less important than the internal meetings of each side. Neither Fehr nor Bettman have the autonomy to decide on a compromise themselves. They probably have a certain amount of latitude but not likely so much that you could lock them in a room and guarantee an agreement. They're talking about huge sums of money, and even a small concession like 1/2% will mean around $100 million difference. Meetings between the sides are likely just an exchange of proposals and a discussion of the rationale behind them. The real negotiations are when Fehr and Bettman take the proposals back to their respective constituency.

FYI: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=405739 is the PAs second (and most recent) proposal. Details of the first were never all that clear, but it seems the first three years were very similar (maybe identical), but the first had a 4th year at 57% instead of the two years described in that site. The owners initial offer was well documented, their second was reportedly mostly the same, but changed the players share to 46%. Their last offer has few details, other than it was "simplified". Revenue split is also given in the link above. However, according to Bettman, that offer was taken off the table when the lockout started so the details don't really matter.

Ok, so you think 52% would be fair. One would assume then that if the players were to propose that figure (and also agree to all the non-financial aspects proposed by the owners), and the owners refuse, you would change your stance and consider the owners to be wholly at fault for the continuing lockout. Would that mean you would then have your head up the PAs ass, or you're some mindless sycophant blindly toeing the party line? You know, the same petty insults you want to hurl at everyone with a different opinion than yours. By the way, if revenues were to grow at around 7.5%, the players proposal would work out to about 52%. And in any proposal, looked at from the perspective of where they were in the last CBA, ALL concessions are being made by the players. (Or at most, players might get a higher minimum salary, or rookie max. Their likely to give up money or rights on every other issue.) It's not really a concession just because the owners will settle for taking away less than they originally wanted to. What I don't understand is why you think is has to be both sides at fault. Or why you think someone on one side or the other is suggesting that is "has" to be either/or. Speaking for myself, I don't think one side "has" to be right, I just think that in this situation, the PA "is" right. As I stated above, there seems to be a number at which you think the PA would be right, so...what makes your opinion on what that number is any more valid than mine? Who the f*** do you think you are that you want to throw insults at me because my idea of "fair" is a few percentage points higher than yours? There is no objective "right" answer to a fair split. Personally, I believe the players are responsible for generating more of the revenue than the teams themselves. I think 4-5% is a fair profit margin for the owners, considering the team value is likely to appreciate at a similar rate (possibly higher if the team is profitable). I've looked at the numbers for recent years, and those numbers say that other expenses are around 40% or less of revenue. So I think 55-56% is a "fair" split. Under the PA proposal, it takes around 4.5% growth to realize a 5% margin (3.6 - 4.1% for 4%), which seems to be a realistic (maybe even conservative) growth estimate. (Though the longer the lockout lasts, the less realistic it is likely to be.) I believe owners should be responsible for sticking to a budget their team can afford, or if they don't, they should accept the losses. I think it is the responsibility of the owners as a group to determine revenue sharing, and then to set the upper and lower limits accordingly to accommodate the revenue disparity between teams. If $8M below the midpoint (player's share) is too high a floor for too many teams, the owners have to lower the floor and raise the cap. Let the rich teams spend more to allow the poor teams to spend less. You shouldn't just ask the players to give up even more. All that is why I am on the side of the players in this situation. If you want to disagree with my opinions, fine. But please stop insinuating that I (or others of similar opinion) are just mindless PA lickspittles. If you can't debate without resorting to childish insults, don't debate at all.

Yes, that is a pretty good analysis, and not even anywhere close to what you described in the post I responded to. It basically amounts to around 4% less than they were getting, give or take a little depending on actual growth. $750M+ is a pretty huge concession. Especially considering the league as a whole was already profitable. So what would you consider a "fair" offer from the players? Seems to me like you just expect the players to keep giving and giving until the owners agree. Every single number available to us says that what the players are offering is fair, and should push the NHL profit margin above both the NBA and MLB, even though the NHL has lower revenue. If the $16M payroll spread doesn't work for enough teams then it should be the sole responsibility of the owners to adjust the system to accommodate the poor teams. You can't expect the players to accept a less than fair split just because the owners don't want to acknowledge the huge revenue disparity.

Please tell me why you continue to ignore the facts? The only thing temporary about the players proposal is the term, and any agreement is going to have a term. Do you really still not know the players proposal after you've been told several times? That's not really true. There are still major expenses that have to be paid, and with a lockout a greatly reduced revenue stream to pay them from. Everyone loses money in a lockout.

No good reason to do either. If we're talking rebuild, you have to consider moving Pav and/or Hank. Our 2nd tier is Franzen, Flip, Kronwall, maybe Jimmy...the return we'd get wouldn't make that big a difference. We'd just have more prospects and less room for potential UFAs. For Pav or Hank we could probably get a real potential stud (in addition to the top 5 pick we'd get for tanking the season). We're in a bit of a tough spot, as we have several prospects with star potential, but who could end up being busts, or somewhere in between. By the time we really know which, our current top and 2nd-tier players will have lost much of their trade value. But that doesn't mean they'll be totally worthless and we should get out while we can. Nor that doing so necessarily means we'd be any better off in the future. Better to just tough it out for now with what UFAs we can add and see what our current prospects will turn in to. Could be some players get made expendable, but we shouldn't go trading them until they are.

Ranchers own the cattle. Team owners do not own the players. I hope the owners don't actually think they do.

I like the NHL because it is the premier hockey league in the world, comprised of the very best players on the planet. I love the Wings as my hometown team, but if they're not drawing from that pool of the best players, it wouldn't be the same. If the AHL and NHL swapped players, I'd become an AHL fan. I'd miss the history and reputation of the Wings, but I'd be buying Griffins merchandise. 3 hours isn't that long a drive either...

We do know what the expenses are. For the first 6 years of the last CBA, average league-wide a little under $1.1B. Increasing by an average of around $58M/5.3% per year, though the increases have been lower in the last few years than the first few. They've averaged about 40% of gross revenue, but they're growing slower than revenue, so the percentages have been decreasing (39% in 10-11, the most recent year we have data for). Overall, the league showed a little over 4% profit for the 10-11 season, which is not a bad margin. Under the player's proposal, if the league continues decent growth (5% or more), the margin would increase to the 6-12% range. The high end of that is very good (and the disparity between revenue and "Hockey Related Revenue" could add a couple points to those margins). For comparison, MLB had about 6.8%, NBA about 4.5%, NFL about 15% (all the more strange that they were able to keep the player's share so low...) per the most recent data available. According to every bit of data available to us, what the players are proposing is a fair split. The onus should be completely on the owners to make that split work for each franchise, either through revenue sharing, widening the payroll range, relocating, or folding some franchises. If it came to folding some teams, then go to the players and see if they want to make further concessions to preserve some jobs. The only thing that might be missing from the player's offer (financially, not considering any contract limits, etc) is some form of stop-loss in the event that revenues decrease or increase by less than the needed amount. For reference, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/. Old, but the most recent data I could find showing profit as % of revenue.

I didn't say operating a team would be illegal, I said what the owners are trying to do: limit max salaries, limit contract length, limit negotiating rights, cap on overall team salaries, pretty sure even roster limits (but not game rosters)... all of that would be a violation of labor law. The players would love to let the market determine their value, because owners have proven time and again that they won't control themselves. They need a set of rules to save them from themselves, and they need the union for those rules.

Look at baseball in the mid-80s; Owners paid players $280M to settle three charges of collusion. There have been other charges since. And that's with a union, imagine what the owners might get away with if there was no union. Fact is, without a union, everything the owners are asking for would be illegal. The only reason the salary cap, max salaries, etc. aren't considered collusion is because the players union agreed to those terms. Without the union, there would be no CBA and each team would decide by themselves what they consider fair compensation to players. Any agreements between teams to limit pay or contract terms to a player would be illegal. I'm sure the players would love that system; it was the owners that fought so hard to get the limits.

I take it you still have not looked at the players last proposal. The option year at 57% is gone. It is a reduced share for the entire 5 year term, though it would likely be around 4% depending on actual growth. At most they could get 57% of new revenue growth in the last two years, but that's far different from 57% of total revenue.

If you read the article it says they would add an additional year at the end. The owners would get their money now, but nothing for the last year. But I'm sure $200M (plus anything they still make from sponsors and merchandise) isn't close to enough to cover all the expenses anyway. Stadium leases, debt payments, any remaining staff that keeps working, unemployment for any staff laid off, and I'm sure that some percentage of any revenue earned will still eventually have to go to players in some form... If there's an extended lockout every owner is still going to lose a lot of money, and that's not even counting potential loss of future revenue. That's why I don't think this lockout will last that long. I still have a little hope that we won't lose any games, though more realistically I'd guess we'll lose 20 or so. Much more than that and too many people will be losing too much money. Unlike the last lockout, where the league as a whole was in the red and even the profitable teams weren't making much, almost 1/3rd of owners stood to make $10M+ in profits this year and will be looking at huge losses instead.

http://www.forbes.co...roit-red-wings/ Lost $3.4M in 2001-02. Of course, when you consider that he bought the team for $8M in 82, and it's now worth over $300M, it's hard to say he's ever lost anything. That's another factor to consider. Unlike a small business, a hockey team is a major asset that is likely to appreciate over time regardless of actual business performance. I highly doubt Ilitch or any owner is thinking on those terms. A businessman will be thinking risk-reward: Likelihood the owners will "win", and money they will earn doing so weighed against the potential losses from locking out. Apparently all the owners currently think the former outweighs the latter.

Details from the second proposal, per Lebrun. No info on what constitutes "adequate" or "skyrockets", but either way they have in fact given up the 57% share. I trust you will now finally stop saying they're unwilling to give up anything. A couple notes on the numbers: Using the Forbes revenue figures for the first 6 years of the last CBA, and the oft-cited $3.3B figure for revenue last season, growth rate has been 6.5%. Projecting that forward, and assuming that would be "skyrocketing" revenue, I come up with the following percentages: 54.3, 52.9, 52.7, 52.9, and 53.2%. Projecting 7.1% growth going forward, I get: 54, 52.3, 51.8, 52.1, and 52.5%. Trying to reconcile the Forbes numbers to "Hockey Related Revenue", it comes out: 52.3, 50.6, 50.1, 50.5, and 50.8% of "actual" revenue. So basically, the players are offering to cut their share by 4%, and very close to a 50/50 split of actual revenue. Cap numbers would be around $69, 71.3, 75.3, 80.3, and 85.5M. Interestingly, these numbers are probably less friendly to low revenue teams than what I was expecting to see. I was basing some of my projections off last season's cap number, but a closer look at the revenue numbers suggests that it was lower than it should have been, per the CBA. It should have been around $68M instead of $64.3. I'd still want some more recent revenue reports before I'll believe those numbers aren't workable, and I'd still be surprised if there are more than a handful of teams that would be unable to make the floor. However, if there are as many as 9 teams who would struggle (it's possible), then I can see why there isn't a fair middle ground. The players shouldn't settle for anything significantly less than they are offering, so if the rich owners aren't willing to make up any difference needed by the poor ones, then the basic core structure needs to be changed. Either widen the gap between the floor and ceiling, or allow trading cap space for cash.

Willingness to compromise changes when most of the parties involved are missing out on paychecks. It's not just a matter of talking about it until you reach an agreement.

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I don't expect either side to show any special consideration for fans. At least not in financial discussions. I expect them to produce a quality product at a price the market can bear. That's all. It's not like any of us will be hurt in any meaningful way if there's an extended lockout (barring those few who work in an NHL-dependent industry). So we might need to find something new to entertain us for a while. If that's the worst of our problems, we should just call ourselves lucky and be done with it. Not to say I won't be upset if we lose some or all of the season, I just don't expect any concessions from either side for our benefit. I just want them to negotiate in good faith, and make fair offers. I've seen nothing to suggest the league is actually doing so, while the numbers seem to fall in line with what the players want. Of course, none of us has all the information so it's really pointless to keep that debate going. Regarding the timing of negotiations: there's a reason almost all collective bargaining is done at the last minute. If there is some middle ground where both sides can agree, negotiation is really only a matter of hours. If there isn't, then you could negotiate non-stop for years and never get anywhere but more firmly entrenched. If there's no middle-ground, there has to be some external influence, such as a lockout (or sometimes just the threat of an impending one), to start changing people's minds. Case in point: "The enforcer debate". It's been raging for what? 15 years? Pretty much no one on either side has changed their opinion at all. We all just keep repeating the same things every time the topic comes up. There's no reason for any of us to concede anything. But if someone were to come here tomorrow and say none of us will collect a paycheck until we reach a consensus... then you'd see some minds change. But it's been a heated debate for a long time, and some people are just stubbornly dug in to their position. Fighting more out of a determination to win than any real consideration of the topic Had CBA negotiations started 6 months ago, we'd very likely be in an even worse spot now. One thing that I've been thinking is just how much of this all comes back to the low-revenue teams. The league want to cut spending on players, not because the league as a whole can't afford it, but because some teams can't afford it (and even more teams can't control themselves). The players don't want to give up what they've been contractually promised (because the league as a whole can afford it) and want the rich teams to do more to support the poor teams. So the rich teams don't want to support the poor teams. The players don't want to support the poor teams. The fans don't want to support the poor teams (or they wouldn't be so poor). Who does want these teams? Why is no one other than a fairly small number of fans talking about getting rid of them? Is it fair to force pay cuts on the players while the Leafs could maybe see $100M+ in profit, and a handful more could see $30-50M, just so a few s***ty teams that apparently no one gives a damn about can also make a few million? On the other hand, is it fair to ask the rich teams to support the poor ones when they don't really benefit from doing so? The PA benefits from the extra jobs those teams create, but they'd benefit just as much if those teams were in better markets, and the players have no say in team location. Revenue disparity is really the biggest issue in the league, but it seems everyone accepts it as a handicap to be worked around rather than an infection to be cured. There's a few ways to cure it: Get rid of the cap system. Simplest solution, and I'm sure the players would love it. Each team free to spend as much or as little as they want. Players aren't guaranteed any percentage, and the market alone determines player salaries. There's no good reason that all 30 teams couldn't make a profit in this system. Owners are dead set against it, to the point that it's almost a joke to even suggest it. They like to say it's for "parity", but really it's because the NHL if full of owners who have proven they can't control themselves. MLB, for all intents, has no cap. But they do have smarter owners. Most MLB teams make a profit, and there's some decent parity. The Yankees spend over $140M more in player salary than the A's but have a worse record. Yeah, the spending gap is higher than most NHL teams' total revenue. Spending has almost zero correlation to standing. But the NHL has too many stupid owners, so it wouldn't work. Too bad. Widen the cap-floor separation. Similar to the above. Let the poorer teams spend less, and the rich teams more. Leave the mid-point/player's share alone. The rich teams make up for the poor teams, but unlike profit sharing the rich teams see a tangible benefit. Player's still get what they consider a fair cut, and again no reason that every team couldn't make a profit. You can also do this indirectly via soft cap/tax system, trading cap space, etc. Unfortunately, it has basically the same problems as removing the cap. Owners would need to control themselves, which they've proven they can't do. Move a few teams. Bit more complicated, but maybe easier than replacing half the owners. Phoenix and the Islanders have to go. They're failures just like Atlanta was. I'd say Carolina too. Columbus, Florida, and Nashville possible alternates. Maybe even St.Louis. Looking at the revenue numbers, the Toronto market needs another team, and could probably support a third. Montreal could likely support another, and/or put a team back in Quebec. Vancouver could maybe support a second, and even a tiny Canadian market like Saskatoon might do better than some current NHL cities (though I don't think that it should be tried). Point is, you could possibly put six more teams in Canada and the league would be better for it. A few US markets like Seattle, KC, Salt Lake, Vegas, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis might be worth a look. Move a few teams, improve the revenue gap, stagnate cap growth rather than rollback salaries, and the PA likely buys in for a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Owners (other than the few who would relocate, or face new market competition) shouldn't care where the other teams are. But it won't even be discussed because ??? doesn't want teams to move...

Can't sign a new contract until the last year of the current one. Datsyuk has two years left, so no, Kenny can not yet sign him to a new contract.