• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

My guess is that players would take 51.5% as long as already signed contracts are not reduced in value.

Two reasonable sides would have come up with a deal already. As it stands, both sides are being unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q&A with Mr. Fehr: Toronto Star.

Interesting read.

I like this bit about the value of the players (and also the idea of replacements).

And I answer in the following way: if you changed all the people in the suits tomorrow – all the owners, all the front-office people, etc. – and you still had the same players, no one would know the difference. If you kept all of the people in the suits and got the next best 750 players in the world, everyone would know tomorrow. The only reason anybody in this league generates any money is that people want to watch the players doing what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet without the owners putting up money and taking the financial risk, there would be no league for these awesomely famous face-of-the-league stars to play in. Fehr's point is dumb, of course fans know the players more than the owners. What sport is this NOT the case. Hollywood diva mentality starting to creep into the NHLPA. People would still go watch games if the current crop of stars were to never show up again. We'll see how many fans follow Datsyuk and Zetterberg to Europe to watch them play.

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, its the same as the last NHLPA offer.

Starts at 53% and goes up to 57% at the end of the deal. Its not 53%, its 57%. I do get what you are saying though. IMHO, the NHL has hit 49% while the Players have relinquished to 53%. Why not just hit 51.5% and make the deal happen? This fight over those extra couple percent is going to cost them more in fans leaving the game.

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.

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lebrun has a decent article on ESPN which serves as a depressing reminder.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19659/this-is-how-we-get-closer-to-a-deal

A lot of the talk has been about percentages but there's also the other significant issues from the league's position. Getting rid of salary arbitration, 10 years to become a UFA, 5 year rookie contracts. Even if they can decide what constitutes HRR and get close on a number, I'm guessing they're still far apart on those issues as well.

If the league really wants to help out the smaller franchises, the one they should push for is no cap circumvention with the ridiculously long contracts, and restrict signing bonuses. Both of those will be harder to match for the less wealthy franchises. Then pretty much keep the rest of the contract stipulations the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the league really wants to help out the smaller franchises, the one they should push for is no cap circumvention with the ridiculously long contracts, and restrict signing bonuses. Both of those will be harder to match for the less wealthy franchises. Then pretty much keep the rest of the contract stipulations the way they are.

Did any proposal from either side include changes to how contract cap number is calculated? Using actual salary for a particular year as a cap number would prevent (most of) the current cap circumvention schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Already been pointed out. My mistake.....

If the players are at 54% and the owners are at 48%, then 51% sounds pretty darn reasonable. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lebrun has a decent article on ESPN which serves as a depressing reminder.

http://espn.go.com/b...loser-to-a-deal

A lot of the talk has been about percentages but there's also the other significant issues from the league's position. Getting rid of salary arbitration, 10 years to become a UFA, 5 year rookie contracts. Even if they can decide what constitutes HRR and get close on a number, I'm guessing they're still far apart on those issues as well.

If the league really wants to help out the smaller franchises, the one they should push for is no cap circumvention with the ridiculously long contracts, and restrict signing bonuses. Both of those will be harder to match for the less wealthy franchises. Then pretty much keep the rest of the contract stipulations the way they are.

Another thing to consider is the last lockout. Take a guess on how many things that the owners asked for in their initial proposal actually showed up in the final copy that both sides drafted after a season was lost.

Answer: 0

None of their "requests" in their initial proposal were upheld in the final draft. Partly because they were just out of the realm of reality at the time. In the end, both Goodenow and Bettman saw the shambles of a lost season and actually compromised.

The owners have compromised more than the players have in the last month or two. Sure, the owners had more headroom due to their lower starting point, but the point is the owners are closer to the 50% split than the players are at this point. I have a feeling they will also compromise on these secondary issues as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The owners have compromised more than the players have in the last month or two. Sure, the owners had more headroom due to their lower starting point, but the point is the owners are closer to the 50% split than the players are at this point. I have a feeling they will also compromise on these secondary issues as well.

I think the owners should be compromising more since they are the ones looking to gain from the negotiations. As has been stated before in this thread, the players aren't looking to take more but they are trying to lose less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already been pointed out. My mistake.....

If the players are at 54% and the owners are at 48%, then 51% sounds pretty darn reasonable. :)

...

The owners have compromised more than the players have in the last month or two. Sure, the owners had more headroom due to their lower starting point, but the point is the owners are closer to the 50% split than the players are at this point. I have a feeling they will also compromise on these secondary issues as well.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I want them to meet in the middle. I think the players are entitled to 52% when the sides were arguing back in July. Now, the number could be 51.5 because its meeting in the middle and both sides have been stubborn. Its called compromise. Obviously, you are only willing to listen to compromise if it comes from the owners side of things.

As for the final number they should come up with, I have no idea what that number would be. Any logical person could deduce if one side was at 52% and the other side was at 48%, wouldn't 50% be a reasonable place to meet in the middle?

I think the owners should be compromising more since they are the ones looking to gain from the negotiations. As has been stated before in this thread, the players aren't looking to take more but they are trying to lose less.

As evidenced by their proposals, they have compromised more than the players.

Psh. That was such a minor concession by the players. Hardly worth mention. :P

Considering they have been a major beneficiary to the last deal, I would say it was a big deal, but at the same time, it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want them to meet in the middle. I think the players are entitled to 52% when the sides were arguing back in July. Now, the number could be 51.5 because its meeting in the middle and both sides have been stubborn. Its called compromise. Obviously, you are only willing to listen to compromise if it comes from the owners side of things.

As for the final number they should come up with, I have no idea what that number would be. Any logical person could deduce if one side was at 52% and the other side was at 48%, wouldn't 50% be a reasonable place to meet in the middle?

As evidenced by their proposals, they have compromised more than the players.

Considering they have been a major beneficiary to the last deal, I would say it was a big deal, but at the same time, it wasn't.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ToMaToToWnWinGsFaN_24

well looks like the lockout is starting get to teams...

i mean really..

who couldnt see this coming ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well looks like the lockout is starting get to teams...

i mean really..

who couldnt see this coming ;)

What in the world...?

I'm sure if there was an explanation, it would explain so much...

Can we force Bettman and Fehr to watch that until one cracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Sportsnet:

The Alberta Labour Relations Board has decided that the NHL's lockout of players from the Edmonton Oilers and Calgary Flames can continue.

The board said in a written ruling released Wednesday that forcing an end to the lockout for two members of a 30-team league would be unlikely to solve the contract dispute between the National Hockey League and the players' union.

"It is our expectation this is nothing more than an unhelpful distraction from their efforts," the ruling said. "An order declaring the lockout to be in violation of the (Alberta Labour Relations) Code would have no positive impact on this dispute."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I don't agree that the 57% number fits the criteria. In the NFL and NBA where a salary cap exists, it is closer to a 50-50 split in each league. Do I agree that the players should get more? Yes I do. At the same time, I do see the rising costs that the teams have to absorb. Billionaires that own teams should have the right to at least try to make a profit with their investments. Illitch breaks even most years or loses a little money because he chooses to compete for a cup. Teams like the Maple Leafs can stink on the ice but still turn a profit.

I do agree with you that the owners had more to give than the players just based on their crap proposal. I just expect the NHLPA to follow suit a bit more than they have and to stop dragging their feet through this process. So far, they have been reluctant to play ball so to speak and delay the negotiations in favor of playing the PR game.

Now we are at a stage where the NHL final number is around 48% while the NHLPA final number is around 54%. Where we are at today, doesn't it make sense for both sides to concede a bit and make it a 51%-49% in favor of the players? I do agree with you as well that if you have a number in mind that the players or owners should make, then meeting in the middle is flawed logic. I have taken no side in this. If anything, those people who have taken a side in this and are comfortable giving a number on how much their side should earn may not be operating on flawed logic in their minds, but they see all other numbers as "flawed logic". I compare it to believing in being a republican or democrat. Its impossible to see the other side and their opinions when you are so focused into the side you support.

In short, the number that I had for the NHLPA has adjusted about 1/2 percentage point down, but there is still a deal to be made here. I hope that the NHLPA gets to that 52% number. At the same time, I hope that both sides can come to some kind of decision on what is fair and make a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 50-50 split in other leagues is irrelevant because of the way revenues are defined. Why do you think the definition of HRR is a core issue right now?

Agreed.

Plus leagues like the NBA have much greater revenue sharing and a luxury tax system. Given the revenue situation and cap structure are so different, it's not really apples to apples comparison. It's not just about 50%, it's about the total package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.