Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
905 replies to this topic

#641 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 01:41 PM

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.

#642 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 01:46 PM

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
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#643 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:04 PM

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.

#644 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,744 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

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.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?
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#645 wingfan91

wingfan91

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 14 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 04:28 PM

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?


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?

#646 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,924 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 04:43 PM

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.

#647 The Axe

The Axe

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,379 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 04:45 PM

SCABS! No bagel, no bagel, no bagel. It's a walk-out!

#648 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,924 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:32 PM

Good article by McKenzie about the current pathetic state of affairs.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404989

Edited by haroldsnepsts, 10 September 2012 - 08:15 PM.
corrected misplaced modifier


#649 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 10 September 2012 - 06:59 PM

If Uncle Gary doesn't think of it, it's not a good idea.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#650 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:11 PM

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.

#651 esteef

esteef

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 8,874 posts

Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:59 PM

If Uncle Gary doesn't think of it, it's not a good idea.


Hey! No using the "Holland Defense"! :lol:

esteef
"The Wings haven't won a Cup without Darren McCarty since 1955."

#652 evilmrt

evilmrt

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,559 posts
  • Location:Winter Freakin Wonderland

Posted 10 September 2012 - 10:44 PM

Odd news...the NHLPA might get the Habs, Oilers, and Flames exempt from the lockout through legal protections in Quebec and Alberta. Not only does this put pressure on the league, but could we have some kind of exhibition games or tournament (invite some KHL all-stars team, SEL all-stars, etc)? The league would cave in a matter of no time.

http://m.espn.go.com...storyId=8363322

#653 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 11 September 2012 - 07:19 AM

“A distraction from the bigger picture,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an email. “But they will be dealt with appropriately. Unfortunate that there appears to be no interest in negotiating a deal in a timely way.”


Put another one up for the Player's in the column "Public Relations in Media".

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#654 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,612 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 11 September 2012 - 07:34 AM

Words from "The Pope":

"The league's doing all the talking about the collective bargaining agreement," Burke told reporters. "Obviously, I've been in on a bunch of the meetings, but not the last week or so. And I'll let the league comment on it. I wish I could say more. I mean, you guys know me: 'no comment' is not something that comes out of these lips easily."


Interesting.

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#655 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,744 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 11 September 2012 - 07:50 AM

Good article by McKenzie about the current pathetic state of affairs.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404989

I especially think these three passages tell the tale right now.

----

Make no mistake, as offensive as the players find the NHL proposed player share cut to under 50 per cent, the NHL owners find the NHLPA proposal equally offensive, especially in light of what has happened in the NBA and NFL. NHL owners cannot fathom that just days before the CBA is set to expire, the only offer on the table from the players sees actual salary expenditure increases in each of the next three years.

They're not happy that negotiations didn't begin until June 29, that the NHLPA exercised its right to employ the 5 per cent inflator to the summertime cap and that the PA rejected a league proposal to freeze the cap at the end of last season, so teams wouldn't spend their way into potential difficulties this summer since there's a practical expectation or sense that the cap number, in a new CBA, is more likely to be less than more.

Earlier, I characterized the NHL's position as extreme. And it is. I don't like that the league is going for a home run (grand slam?) on its first at bat. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the NHLPA position isn't hard line, too. To be honest, I'm shocked we're less than a week from a lockout and the players' proposal doesn't include a tangible reduction in their share, not even to 56 per cent, if only to acknowledge practical considerations that the number is realistically going to end up somewhere south of 57 and the number of real dollars spent on salaries will likely be less this coming season than last season.

----

Its hard for me to fathom why both sides can't just sit in a room and figure out how to cut a $3.3 billion dollar pie. In the end, this paragraph has it right.

----

As for being pro-player or pro-owner, I suppose on an emotional level I can empathize with the players more this time than last time for reasons outlined throughout, but on a practical level, in the face of the reality that's about to strike, I'm also finding it hard to believe the players can't do better with their offer than they have. But at the end of the day, does it really matter what I think or who wins in the court of public opinion, who sides with whom? We're all pretty much just spectators here.

----

We as spectators have got to put pressure on both sides to make a deal happen. Hell, getting them to the table would be a good step at this stage.

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.

You also have to wonder how forthcoming the league is to give out that information. The answer is....probably not very much so. The players waiting until June to negotiate didn't help matters any either. Both sides need a kick in the ass. I know negotiations have been tenuous in the past, but jeez.....

Its just disgusting.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#656 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 08:03 AM

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.

Edmonton's situation is way off the norm. I'm assuming most of the bonuses were paid anyway. When you get into bonuses, it's really only on entry level contracts anyway. You can't not have potential bonsuses count because what if they hit the targets and get paid and then you are over? Point is, it is a pretty tough argument to suggest the floor isn't a problem because teams can simply get there by having bonsues count against the cap, which aren't actually paid.

You are correct, contracts can be backloaded such that a team pays way less then the cap hit in the early years and then trades the player (i.e. never having to pay the higher amounts). However, in reality, very, very, very few contracts are backloaded, it's quite the opposite.

#657 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 08:10 AM

Odd news...the NHLPA might get the Habs, Oilers, and Flames exempt from the lockout through legal protections in Quebec and Alberta. Not only does this put pressure on the league, but could we have some kind of exhibition games or tournament (invite some KHL all-stars team, SEL all-stars, etc)? The league would cave in a matter of no time.

http://m.espn.go.com...storyId=8363322

If the NHLPA is successful in blocking a lockout of the Montreal, Edmonton and Calgary players, that doesn't mean these teams would then be playing games. All it means is that those players would have to be paid and granted normal use of the teams' facilities to practice, etc.

#658 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,924 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:22 AM

I especially think these three passages tell the tale right now.

----

Make no mistake, as offensive as the players find the NHL proposed player share cut to under 50 per cent, the NHL owners find the NHLPA proposal equally offensive, especially in light of what has happened in the NBA and NFL. NHL owners cannot fathom that just days before the CBA is set to expire, the only offer on the table from the players sees actual salary expenditure increases in each of the next three years.

They're not happy that negotiations didn't begin until June 29, that the NHLPA exercised its right to employ the 5 per cent inflator to the summertime cap and that the PA rejected a league proposal to freeze the cap at the end of last season, so teams wouldn't spend their way into potential difficulties this summer since there's a practical expectation or sense that the cap number, in a new CBA, is more likely to be less than more.

Earlier, I characterized the NHL's position as extreme. And it is. I don't like that the league is going for a home run (grand slam?) on its first at bat. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the NHLPA position isn't hard line, too. To be honest, I'm shocked we're less than a week from a lockout and the players' proposal doesn't include a tangible reduction in their share, not even to 56 per cent, if only to acknowledge practical considerations that the number is realistically going to end up somewhere south of 57 and the number of real dollars spent on salaries will likely be less this coming season than last season.

----

Its hard for me to fathom why both sides can't just sit in a room and figure out how to cut a $3.3 billion dollar pie. In the end, this paragraph has it right.

----

As for being pro-player or pro-owner, I suppose on an emotional level I can empathize with the players more this time than last time for reasons outlined throughout, but on a practical level, in the face of the reality that's about to strike, I'm also finding it hard to believe the players can't do better with their offer than they have. But at the end of the day, does it really matter what I think or who wins in the court of public opinion, who sides with whom? We're all pretty much just spectators here.

----

We as spectators have got to put pressure on both sides to make a deal happen. Hell, getting them to the table would be a good step at this stage.


You also have to wonder how forthcoming the league is to give out that information. The answer is....probably not very much so. The players waiting until June to negotiate didn't help matters any either. Both sides need a kick in the ass. I know negotiations have been tenuous in the past, but jeez.....

Its just disgusting.


It's telling but not surprising that you picked a first passage that mostly focus on the negative aspects of the NHLPA, while skipping over the entire first half of the article that spells out how ridiculous the NHL's position is.

#659 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts

Posted 11 September 2012 - 09:31 AM

Best article I've been reading on the whole story kudos to Bob and well worth the long read.

For me it is still easy to side with the players, they are the guys giving their all each day/night, sacrifising their health for our entertainment. Nobody is forcing the lesser franchises to give out such huge contracts if they do and are getting into trouble for it, it is their own problem. The NHL failed not one but two times to fix the Phoenix situation because the dwarf is a stubborn idiot.

The only thing I didn't like in his article was how he mentioned the NBA/NFL - two total different leagues - but only one time the MLB which is in fact way more comparable to the NHL than the other two leagues. At this point I am more than sure we'll have another lockout thanks to the NHL and their stupid expansion into questionable markets and insulting starting-offer.

Some owners are just a bunch of greedy liars crying poor on one side but giving out contracts which they fully know are too much for them. And then they are going to the dwarf calling for more revenue sharing and salary rollbacks. The truth is they want to cry poor, spend as less as possible but still be competitive on a nightly basis which just is paradox.

I'd rather have a 5, 10 or 15 teams league instead of an overblown NHL in questionable markets.

Edited by frankgrimes, 11 September 2012 - 09:35 AM.

kftx.jpg

 

The Offseason of truth ...

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

blank cheque for The Captain or Jim Star Nil please..


#660 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,744 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 11 September 2012 - 10:06 AM

It's telling but not surprising that you picked a first passage that mostly focus on the negative aspects of the NHLPA, while skipping over the entire first half of the article that spells out how ridiculous the NHL's position is.

I think its equally telling just how much NHLPA ass you are willing to kiss by only focusing on the faults of the owners while ignoring the faults of the NHLPA. I don't think I need to keep repeating over and over again how much the owners proposal sucked a big one. Just like I don't need you to keep reiterating over and over again about how much the league could bend a bit more. I mean, we had this discussion back about 15 pages ago. You had some constructive comments to give to the NHLPA, and I have been saying all along that the owners proposal sucked a big one. I don't think we need to drag each side through the mud anymore than they already have.

Do we really need to hear each other say the negative things about each side in order to agree that both sides really have not budged very much?
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain





Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users