• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

906 posts in this topic

I agree 100% with Darren Dreger.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/darren_dreger/?id=404679

A new system is a requirement. Negotiating that in 6 days is unlikely. The players won't budge on an immediate correction, and the league won't even look at the current system and see how flawed it is. In short, no hockey until November or December.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, the people who kill puppies and punch babies think it's an equal split of responsibility for the looming lockout. The ones who have looked at the issues are incredibly smart and realize like me that the league and Bettman are more responsible.

Did I do it right? I'm still learning how this built-in insult on anyone who disagrees works. :P

This is just the issue with people who are in one corner or the other. I think you got it right. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just the issue with people who are in one corner or the other. I think you got it right. :)

My point was that someone having a different opinion than you doesn't make them ignorant and uninformed.

I think the article Pskov Wings fan quoted got it pretty right on. The league is profitable. The biggest issue is the disparity between the franchises. No matter how they perform on the ice, Nashville will never bring in the money the Leafs do. The question is how you help out smaller market teams without rewarding idiocy by owners. It's a tough question.

What I do know is the answer is not as simple as taking more and more from the players.

That's why I blame Bettman more than the NHLPA. He screwed this up out of the gate by going in with the same game plan as 2004. Cry poor, make extreme demands of the players, wait for the union to cave.

Instead what it needs is a more nuanced approach where the players make concessions on contract length and % of revenue, while the owners also increase revenue sharing, and the league gives up or lowers the cap floor.

Rather than trying to get his owners on board in the long term health of the league, Bettman seems more interested in breaking the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players proposal calls for a 3 year plan. The first year they decrease their share of the profits to 53%, then it goes up to 55% the next year, and up to 57% in the 3rd year. So, in short, the players proposal calls for no changes to the existing system, and the league would be right back where it started 3 years ago. So, how is that not understanding what the players are proposing? How are you not surprised that the league didn't accept this proposal?

http://www.vancouver...2488/story.html

Once again I will say this, the people who are solely behind the players and blaming the league are uninformed and ignorant. Those people do not understand what the players proposed and the ramifications behind the proposal. The players proposal is not a silver bullet that solves all the issues, contrary to what you believe.

Did you even read the link you posted?

The proposal includes delinking the salary cap from hockey-related revenue and setting a fixed rate - increasing by two per cent for the first year, four per cent for the second and six per cent for the third. That would see the salary cap grow to $78.93 million for the 2014-15 season.

Afterwards, the players would hold an option to have the fourth year revert to the current system, where they are entitled to receive 57 per cent of all revenues.

I don't think the cap number they give for 14-15 is accurate, as it appears that is based on the $70.2 cap number already set. If based on last season's cap number, the caps for the next three years would be: $65.6, $68.2, and $72.3. If they continued as is, and the cap increased by the same average it has over the past 7 seasons the caps would be: $70.2, $76.4, and $83.2. If it grew at the average revenue growth rate (reportedly 7.1%) it would be $68.9, $73.8, and $79.

I've also read that the players are flexible on the 4th year. I've seen that the players proposed a luxury tax. I've seen a proposed $69M cap for next year. I've seen that players would revert to 57% if revenue growth was 10% or more, and that it would only be 57% of any growth in excess of 10%... I've seen a lot of info, likely some of it true and some false, but never anything even close to what you say it is. Where exactly did you get that information?

And I never said the players' proposal solves all the issues. The two main issues are failure teams that likely couldn't turn a profit with a $20M floor, and owners that can't control their own spending. No proposal from the players can fix those issues. Nor did I say the players proposal actually solves the revenue split issue. We don't have revenue breakdowns for the most recent season, so I can't say for sure. Nor can you say for sure that the players aren't giving enough. I can say that given the numbers we do have, I'd be surprised if what the players propose wouldn't work. I freely admit that my opinion is based largely on using past growth to estimate revenues now. Yours appears to be based on your desire to place equal blame on players.

You want to just state that the cap floor is a huge problem, and that players don't want it lowered, despite the facts that you don't have a single number to support the claim and that the players are willing to lower the floor immediately (as well as limiting future growth). You want to say the players aren't willing to budge at all when you don't have the first clue as to how much more the players may be willing to concede. But you want to call everyone else uninformed and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want to just state that the cap floor is a huge problem, and that players don't want it lowered, despite the facts that you don't have a single number to support the claim and that the players are willing to lower the floor immediately (as well as limiting future growth). You want to say the players aren't willing to budge at all when you don't have the first clue as to how much more the players may be willing to concede. But you want to call everyone else uninformed and ignorant.

The cap floor is a huge problem, and by the way that the league is not budging on lowering salaries of the players, it is a problem. A temporary decrease with it rising back up to the levels that they are at today is not a permanent solution. You are right on one thing, I don't have a single shred of evidence that the league wouldn't be open to a lowering of the cap floor. Their initial proposal didn't have that in there, but they could allow that. Just like we don't know how much the players are willing to concede. We also don't know how much the owners are willing to concede. This is because, so far, neither side has conceded anything.

How can you have meaningful negotiations when neither side is willing to concede anything?

First, lets clarify something. Some here think that anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and ignorant. That isn't the case. I call people who side exclusively with either the league or the players uninformed and ignorant.

There are a lot of people firmly sitting in the players camp and accepting everything they are saying as truth. Same with the owners camp. Take for example the players proposal. Some fans looked at that proposal as the silver bullet, the end of the lockout. The answer to everything, and while it wasn't as bad as the owners proposal, it was still bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the players want to keep everything they have now, and the owners want the world from the players. Neither is going to happen, so we may as well hunker down for a long lockout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead what it needs is a more nuanced approach where the players make concessions on contract length and % of revenue, while the owners also increase revenue sharing, and the league gives up or lowers the cap floor.

You and I are in complete agreement. Right now though, neither side seems to be willing to give up anything.

What we need right now are more people who are willing to look at both sides and see there are key areas that need to be addressed. Both sides needs to give up something to get something.

Why can't the NHL get entry contracts capped at 4 years while the NHLPA gets to keep arbitration and get expanded revenue sharing along with a luxury tax for up to $5 million above the cap?

Answer: Because neither side is budging.

Work together guys, it isn't that damn difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting

If the National Hockey League does lock out the players on Sept. 15, they could be facing a legal challenge in Quebec.

According to the Montreal Gazette, since the NHL Players' Association is not certified by the Quebec Labour Board, the NHLPA believes that the Montreal Canadiens will legally be unable to shut its doors to the players because employers are not allowed to lock out employees unless they are in a Quebec Labour Board Union.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404929

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they give us empty arenas

Let's give them empty arenas when they unlock the doors

#nomorelockouts

#nobettman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't the NHL get entry contracts capped at 4 years while the NHLPA gets to keep arbitration and get expanded revenue sharing along with a luxury tax for up to $5 million above the cap?

Answer: Because neither side is budging.

Work together guys, it isn't that damn difficult.

Aren't entry level deals already capped?

Arbitration is part of the current deal. Keeping it is not really a concession by the league. In any case I think the removal of arbitration is just a side show in the NHL's proposal meant to draw attention away from parts owners really want and something to potentially "give back".

I would like to see actual financial concessions from the profitable NHL teams.

For example, let say that non-profitable teams are losing $200M in total. Structure a deal where half comes from lowering players share of revenues and half comes from "rich" teams through revenue sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cap floor is a huge problem, and by the way that the league is not budging on lowering salaries of the players, it is a problem. A temporary decrease with it rising back up to the levels that they are at today is not a permanent solution. You are right on one thing, I don't have a single shred of evidence that the league wouldn't be open to a lowering of the cap floor. Their initial proposal didn't have that in there, but they could allow that. Just like we don't know how much the players are willing to concede. We also don't know how much the owners are willing to concede. This is because, so far, neither side has conceded anything.

How can you have meaningful negotiations when neither side is willing to concede anything?

First, lets clarify something. Some here think that anyone who disagrees with me is uninformed and ignorant. That isn't the case. I call people who side exclusively with either the league or the players uninformed and ignorant.

There are a lot of people firmly sitting in the players camp and accepting everything they are saying as truth. Same with the owners camp. Take for example the players proposal. Some fans looked at that proposal as the silver bullet, the end of the lockout. The answer to everything, and while it wasn't as bad as the owners proposal, it was still bad. The simple fact of the matter is that the players want to keep everything they have now, and the owners want the world from the players. Neither is going to happen, so we may as well hunker down for a long lockout.

What evidence do you have that the floor is a problem? How many teams can't afford to spend to the floor? And do you realize that compliance with the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, so teams can in fact spend under the floor. Edmonton could end up paying almost $10M less in salary than they have in cap hits. And if you allow trading of cap space, it provides another tool for struggling teams to control spending without just taking money away from the players. (Even better if you let teams trade cap space for cash.)

And what evidence do you have that returning to 57% wouldn't work in the future? Do you know the team by team revenue breakdowns for the '15-16 season? If so, you should pass that along to the league and the PA, it would probably help negotiations. Of course there will be no "permanent" solution with a set-duration CBA. Keep in mind that one year isn't a permanent problem either. Worst case scenario it's one problem year. The world wouldn't end and owners wouldn't go bankrupt.

Both sides, I'm certain, are willing to move from their initial positions. The owners already have, and while the players haven't yet made a second proposal there have been talks of flexibility, including on that option year you seem to think is the devil. However, I don't blame the players for failing to make a second offer when the owners' second offer seems to be still so far from reasonable or justifiable. I'd want to see the owners show they are willing to be serious first. Instead the owners just want to play games. Try to make it look like they're offering a fair split, but redefining revenue in their favor. What's next, offer 54%, but redefine "percent" to mean 0.85 parts in 100.

That's the main reason I'm against the owners. Redefining revenue without any explanation or apparent justification. Doesn't mean I think the owners are 100% to blame, only about 90-95% or so. Until I see some numbers to suggest otherwise, I'll continue to go with what the numbers I do have suggest, which is that the players are far, far closer to being "right" than the owners.

All of us are ignorant to some degree. There's information none of us has access to. I admit I might be wrong, and the financials may be worse than I think; worse than past data suggests they would be. You seem pretty certain of yourself though, despite the fact that you don't have any more information than anyone else. Good to know though that you're not insulting everyone who disagrees with you, and only those who hold opinions that aren't the same. Much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Daly, the NHL's deputy commissioner, referred to the matter as a "distraction" that was "not unexpected."

Bill Daly, bringing us a "Peter Griffin moment". Nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides, I'm certain, are willing to move from their initial positions. The owners already have, and while the players haven't yet made a second proposal there have been talks of flexibility, including on that option year you seem to think is the devil. However, I don't blame the players for failing to make a second offer when the owners' second offer seems to be still so far from reasonable or justifiable. I'd want to see the owners show they are willing to be serious first. Instead the owners just want to play games. Try to make it look like they're offering a fair split, but redefining revenue in their favor. What's next, offer 54%, but redefine "percent" to mean 0.85 parts in 100.

That's the main reason I'm against the owners. Redefining revenue without any explanation or apparent justification. Doesn't mean I think the owners are 100% to blame, only about 90-95% or so. Until I see some numbers to suggest otherwise, I'll continue to go with what the numbers I do have suggest, which is that the players are far, far closer to being "right" than the owners.

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there.

What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right? :P

As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong.

If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you. :)

esteef likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What evidence do you have that the floor is a problem? How many teams can't afford to spend to the floor? And do you realize that compliance with the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, so teams can in fact spend under the floor. Edmonton could end up paying almost $10M less in salary than they have in cap hits.

I don't have any specific "evidence" that the floor is a problem to a lot of teams other than it being obvious....a lot of teams simply can't afford to pay to the floor. When you say the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, well.....the cap is based on actual salary, so it's the same thing. If you suggest Edmonton can end up paying almost $10 million less in salary than they have in cap hits, that just means they pay $10 million more in salary than in cap hits in the future, it's just a timing thing. In the end, total cap hit = total dollars spent, there is no difference.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems.

You just perfectly described the current political climate in this country. I know, I know mods...Stay On Topic! :tounge:

esteef

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both sides are going to have to be open to move from their initial positions in order to get a deal done. So far, the movement away from their initial positions have been small to say the least. You mention that the owners already have, but that movement was just a blip on the radar. I find it funny how people who are dead set against the owners in this want to see them make the first major move. As if that would be the olive branch that the players need to make a deal. From what I have seen so far, neither side has it right. Neither side has put forward a proposal that would even come close to fixing the issues that are out there.

What we need are less fans siding with the owners or players and more fans getting angry at both sides and putting pressure on them to make a deal. The people who are siding with one camp or the other are typically blinded by their hatred of the other side so much that they cannot see the real problems. You, for instance, want to see the owners come forward with a meaningful proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but why can't both sides work together to get a deal done? Why does it have to be the owners alone? Why not the players? Oh, thats right, the players are right in your mind, and every proposal they put forward has the pulse of the league in mind right? :P

As for your questions on how I would know if the 57% would work or not or if the cap floor is a real problem, you are right in that these things could work in certain systems. Even I don't know what will work and what won't work in any given situation. All I do know is that there is a time to take sides and there is a time to stand with other fans and put pressure on both sides to get a deal done. That is where the fans should be sitting right now, not reading NHLPA or NHL propaganda and believing that your side is always in the right while the other one is always in the wrong.

If you cannot see how that approach makes someone ignorant and uninformed, then I cannot help you. :)

If you think Forbes data, attendance reports, other web reports regarding revenue, and math are "propaganda" then we probably should end this debate. I've looked at the numbers available and drew my own conclusion, it just happens to be pretty close to what the players seem to want. You seem to have just made up your mind that both sides are equally "wrong" without any sort of data, evidence, or analysis at all. You say neither side is right, and not even close to fixing the issues but you can't provide any rationale in support of what you think the issues are.

You're right that blindly accepting statements from either side is a poor way to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong, or equally far from right.

I don't have any specific "evidence" that the floor is a problem to a lot of teams other than it being obvious....a lot of teams simply can't afford to pay to the floor. When you say the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, well.....the cap is based on actual salary, so it's the same thing. If you suggest Edmonton can end up paying almost $10 million less in salary than they have in cap hits, that just means they pay $10 million more in salary than in cap hits in the future, it's just a timing thing. In the end, total cap hit = total dollars spent, there is no difference.

Not really. Edmonton's situation is mostly the result of bonuses. Any bonus money that can potentially be earned counts against the cap, but if they are never earned they are never paid. Back-loading contracts can also lower the actual dollars spent, and then the player could be traded before the salary rises above the cap hit.

And you can say it's "obvious" that the floor is a problem, but as of the most recent numbers available to us, it wasn't. 26 teams should have been able to afford the floor in '10-11. One of those that couldn't moved, and reportedly did much better last year. The numbers we have suggest that probably 24-28 teams should be able to afford the floor now, and that's not even counting additional revenue sharing, or other methods to reduce spending.

dobbles and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think Forbes data, attendance reports, other web reports regarding revenue, and math are "propaganda" then we probably should end this debate. I've looked at the numbers available and drew my own conclusion, it just happens to be pretty close to what the players seem to want. You seem to have just made up your mind that both sides are equally "wrong" without any sort of data, evidence, or analysis at all. You say neither side is right, and not even close to fixing the issues but you can't provide any rationale in support of what you think the issues are.

You're right that blindly accepting statements from either side is a poor way to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong, or equally far from right.

Not really. Edmonton's situation is mostly the result of bonuses. Any bonus money that can potentially be earned counts against the cap, but if they are never earned they are never paid. Back-loading contracts can also lower the actual dollars spent, and then the player could be traded before the salary rises above the cap hit.

And you can say it's "obvious" that the floor is a problem, but as of the most recent numbers available to us, it wasn't. 26 teams should have been able to afford the floor in '10-11. One of those that couldn't moved, and reportedly did much better last year. The numbers we have suggest that probably 24-28 teams should be able to afford the floor now, and that's not even counting additional revenue sharing, or other methods to reduce spending.

Then you obviously have not been looking at the right data.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_

According to Forbes, 18 of the 30 teams are losing money.

I would like to see the data you are describing where 24-28 of the teams should be able to afford the floor now. Care to share?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you obviously have not been looking at the right data.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/list/#p_1_s_a6_

According to Forbes, 18 of the 30 teams are losing money.

I would like to see the data you are describing where 24-28 of the teams should be able to afford the floor now. Care to share?

How many of those 18 teams crying poor spend money that they dont have, or much more than they do, like it grows on trees? Hmmm, let's see, minnesota, washington, pittsburgh, carolina, buffalo, dallas, san jose. I have no sympathy for these teams as they are victims of their own circumstance. Most, if not all, generate enough revenue to be profitable franchises(apparently tha is the goal, not winning stanley cups). As for the rest of them, well, I thi k we can all draw the conclusion here that, save winnipeg, which is playing in a sorely undersized arena, aren't in hockey hot beds, and most are gary's expansion babies. Why should anyone other than the NHL and it's owners be responsible for fixing these problems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you obviously have not been looking at the right data.

http://www.forbes.co...list/#p_1_s_a6_

According to Forbes, 18 of the 30 teams are losing money.

I would like to see the data you are describing where 24-28 of the teams should be able to afford the floor now. Care to share?

No, that Forbes list shows 18 of 30 teams have negative earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation. It's one piece of a much larger and more complex financial situation. That's not the same as 18 teams losing money.

I also wonder if they're just basing that on Hockey Related Revenue by the league's definition or if they're using revenue that should reasonably be included from ownership of the team, which is a larger amount.

The accounting gets fuzzy very quickly depending on what they're including as revenue and expenses. It's not a simple as "18 of 30 teams are losing money" though that's what Bettman and the league want everyone to think. Part of the problem with the negotiations is just getting the financial information together, sorting through it all, and figuring out what the actual financial picture is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you obviously have not been looking at the right data.

http://www.forbes.co...list/#p_1_s_a6_

According to Forbes, 18 of the 30 teams are losing money.

I would like to see the data you are describing where 24-28 of the teams should be able to afford the floor now. Care to share?

I posted this earlier in the thread and you ignored it, I'm sure you'll do it again but anyway...

It's the right data, you're just looking at it the wrong way.

That is from the 10-11 season. The floor in that season was ~$43M. No information is available on exact cost of player benefits, but it seems to be around $2.5-3M/team. Non-player expenses don't have a floor, but the minimum reasonable amount seems to be around $33M for that year. Add it all up and a team needed around $80M in revenue to break even. 26 teams had that.

Jump to next season, and even with the cap as it stands at team would need about $94M. 17 teams were already at that, Atlanta moved and reportedly had around $100M in their first year in Winnipeg. 3 more teams weren't too far off, and likely make the cut just from normal growth and the new TV deal that started last year. Phoenix and the Islanders almost certainly didn't make it, and 7 more teams are on the bubble.

But the players already proposed lowering the cap (and thus the floor). Specifics are hard to come by, but increasing the cap by 2% from last year or changing the revenue split to 54% would put the floor at ~$50M, lowering the break-even point to around $90M. Add in a few extra million in potential revenue sharing as the players propose, and I would be surprised if at least 3 of those bubble teams didn't hit that mark. Given that, I'd be surprised if there are fewer than 24 teams that couldn't afford a $50M floor, and not all surprised if as many as 28 teams could. Ergo, I do not see the floor, as per my understanding of the players proposal, to be a problem.

And that isn't even considering the proposal to trade cap space, or the ability to spend under the floor in real salary, or skimp on non-player expenses.

I could be wrong, but until I see some numbers that say otherwise, I'll stick with my analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0