• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Motown4013

The offer on the table....whats the prediction?

Rate this topic

The offer on the table   79 members have voted

  1. 1. PLAYERS WILL TAKE WHATS ON THE BOARD

    • and change very little...we will have a deal by the weekend
    • will counter offer with a few small changes...deal done in 5-7 days
    • will play "hard ball" but will sign to play to salvage the Nov 2nd date
    • Players won't sign. They will hold out for more revenue sharing and a bigger payday. NO DEAL

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

26 posts in this topic

they will counter some points of the latest proposal. i would elaborate more later when im more free. i think2 weeks of hardcore negotiations and counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are a few sticky points...I think they will vote to reverse a few changes....Fingers and toes crossed for a short and peaceful resolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the wording of the last choice is off. In no scenario are the players ever going to get a bigger payday. Everything about this new CBA will be worse than what they had.

They'd be holding out to lose less, not to get more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the wording of the last choice is off. In no scenario are the players ever going to get a bigger payday. Everything about this new CBA will be worse than what they had.

They'd be holding out to lose less, not to get more.

This is true.

I voted for the 3rd option though, maybe because of a bit of hopefullness though. I really hope and somewhat think what will happen is that the NHLPA will be very aggressive with this offer and do their best to negotiate a better deal of the next week, but then whatever is on the table at that time, I bet the players will be given an opportunity to vote.....largely because of the PR move made by the league.

Then NHLPA may get to a spot where they don't feel the offer is good enough, but if the majority of the players are willing to accept it, then that's what they'll do I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they will counter some points of the latest proposal. i would elaborate more later when im more free. i think2 weeks of hardcore negotiations and counters.

There will definitely be some counter points. The 50/50 split sounds nice if the cap wasn't already set at 70.2 mil and how do you be cap compliant without the rollback?

Lets break this down.

Revenues = $3.303 billion

divide by 30 is $110.1 million per team

divide 50/50 split gets % 55.05 million is what the cap would be set at.

that's a 15 million dollar drop in cap.

55 million divided by 70 million = .7857

So in the end, the revenue gets dropped by 7% overall, but the players salaries would be reduced with the cap by approx 21%, but without the rollback, just some make whole jargen. Slightly less than the 24% last time.

The now expired CBA was drafted and force fed by the owners and the players reluctantly accepted it after losing a season. All the crap they're saying about "escrow" and "make whole" will get us back to where we're at now in 6 years cause the 7th won't be agreed upon cause the owners will want more money back again. If there's a 50/50 split, the the only way the game will continue to grow and have the cap go up is if there's relocation of numerous teams.

With the amount of fans that said they're not gonna return to the NHL, all the growth of the past 6 years crash landed and the revenues and merch sales this year will take a massive hit and there may be more teams to add to the list for relocation along with Phoenix, NYI and New Jersey, who already have a terrible fan base.

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it. The owners and their GM's are the ones that keep offering players 8-20 year contracts and then come back and say they want the max to be 5 years. The hypocrisy is amazing with this lockout.

end rant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it.

end rant

Aren't current contracts going to be honoured? As in, the players will all get their contractually agreed upon moneyz eventually? If that's true, what part of the latest NHL proposal is not honouring contracts?

Edited by RedWingsDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't current contracts going to be honoured? As in, the players will all get their contractually agreed upon moneyz eventually? If that's true, what part of the latest NHL proposal is not honouring contracts?

I don't think they are. That's the confusing part in all of this.

They're not calling it a rollback but I still don't quite understand how the player will be paid out their full contract because it sounds like they're going to take a definite hit in the first few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was one of the few here to predict this lockout...Now I'm predicting a deal with get done within several days with a few changes in the BOG's current offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think they are. That's the confusing part in all of this.

They're not calling it a rollback but I still don't quite understand how the player will be paid out their full contract because it sounds like they're going to take a definite hit in the first few years.

RedWingsDad...this. Everyone is confused as to how teams are going to be cap compliant and how the players are going to keep the money they already got signed on for. the whole thing is eff'd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many "grey areas" in the offer. Did I hear this correctly (maybe I didn't): that in order to play an 82-game schedule and finishing the season per usual, calendar weeks with five games will have to be played? That works out to two weeks per schedule month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will definitely be some counter points. The 50/50 split sounds nice if the cap wasn't already set at 70.2 mil and how do you be cap compliant without the rollback?

Lets break this down.

Revenues = $3.303 billion

divide by 30 is $110.1 million per team

divide 50/50 split gets % 55.05 million is what the cap would be set at.

that's a 15 million dollar drop in cap.

55 million divided by 70 million = .7857

So in the end, the revenue gets dropped by 7% overall, but the players salaries would be reduced with the cap by approx 21%, but without the rollback, just some make whole jargen. Slightly less than the 24% last time.

The now expired CBA was drafted and force fed by the owners and the players reluctantly accepted it after losing a season. All the crap they're saying about "escrow" and "make whole" will get us back to where we're at now in 6 years cause the 7th won't be agreed upon cause the owners will want more money back again. If there's a 50/50 split, the the only way the game will continue to grow and have the cap go up is if there's relocation of numerous teams.

With the amount of fans that said they're not gonna return to the NHL, all the growth of the past 6 years crash landed and the revenues and merch sales this year will take a massive hit and there may be more teams to add to the list for relocation along with Phoenix, NYI and New Jersey, who already have a terrible fan base.

The players just want the contracts they signed honoured and the owners have a problem with it. The owners and their GM's are the ones that keep offering players 8-20 year contracts and then come back and say they want the max to be 5 years. The hypocrisy is amazing with this lockout.

end rant

FYI, that's not how the cap is calculated.

It's: (HRR * Share% - Benefits) / 30 + 8 (or -8 for the floor). We don't know exactly what benefits cost, but it doesn't make that big a difference. Using $3.3B the previously estimated ~$3.45B the $70.2M cap was based on for revenue would put the cap around $62M, but I've heard the league says $59.9M. Probably estimating a lower revenue (not surprising given they claim to have lost $100M from the pre-season). ~edit: Based on revenues staying flat, $3.3B

However, I read that each team can still spend up to the previous $70M cap in the first year. I haven't seen any details on how they plan to handle the overage. They've said all existing contracts will be honored in full, but I'd guess they'll deduct the overage from future years. It's probably not really 50/50 across the board, more like a 54/50/49/49/49/49 kind of thing. Similar to the previous structures offered from both sides, just worded a bit differently. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see if the details come out. ~edit: Yes, overage will be deducted from the share in later seasons.

Too many "grey areas" in the offer. Did I hear this correctly (maybe I didn't): that in order to play an 82-game schedule and finishing the season per usual, calendar weeks with five games will have to be played? That works out to two weeks per schedule month.

Starting Nov. 2nd would mean a 23 week season, if they still end it in mid-April. Roughly 3.5 games / week. It's possible 5 games in 7 days could happen, but likely very rare. (Normal schedule was 26 weeks. A little over 3 games / week.)

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existing contracts are only honoured in full if there is sufficient future growth such that 50% of revenues covers those existing contracts.

Edited by toby91_ca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existing contracts are only honoured in full if there is sufficient future growth such that 50% of revenues covers those existing contracts.

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, that's not how the cap is calculated.

It's: (HRR * Share% - Benefits) / 30 + 8 (or -8 for the floor). We don't know exactly what benefits cost, but it doesn't make that big a difference. Using $3.3B for revenue would put the cap around $62M, but I've heard the league says $59.9M. Probably estimating a lower revenue (not surprising given they claim to have lost $100M from the pre-season).

However, I read that each team can still spend up to the previous $70M cap in the first year. I haven't seen any details on how they plan to handle the overage. They've said all existing contracts will be honored in full, but I'd guess they'll deduct the overage from future years. It's probably not really 50/50 across the board, more like a 54/50/49/49/49/49 kind of thing. Similar to the previous structures offered from both sides, just worded a bit differently. I could be wrong, we'll just have to wait and see if the details come out.

Starting Nov. 2nd would mean a 23 week season, if they still end it in mid-April. Roughly 3.5 games / week. It's possible 5 games in 7 days could happen, but likely very rare. (Normal schedule was 26 weeks. A little over 3 games / week.)

That salary cap stuff the way the proposal drew it up is confusing as all hell. I'll just wait on the sidelines with that one until they give us a number and start playing. No more trying to figure it out. :lol:

As for the possible 5 game weeks....playoffs should be fast paced and exciting when everyone's got their own oxygen tank on the bench :ok:

Either way, change a few things in the NHL's proposal and drop the puck!

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

Good question, cause the NHL's growth hit the wall as soon as Buttman started spouting about another lockout and then did just that. The non die hard fans are abandoning ship and it'll take more than adding shootouts to the NHL to lure them back again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

That's not really the point. The point is that is that the players will be paying themselves to cover intitial shortfalls. If 50% fo revenues are not enough this year to cover salaries, the players will just take less money later to cover the difference....so they might get 45% of revnues in a later year for example. The league suggesting no rollbacks is completely bogus.

Z Winged Dangler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sucks is being a fan of a league that can boast the most intelligent players in pro sports. This can make for longer lockout periods. And also having Buttman as the mouthpiece of the owners. How do I get my keyboard to stop underlining everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's making me very scared that the majority of the players are saying it's not a good deal. Now I'm not so sure about a deal getting done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's making me very scared that the majority of the players are saying it's not a good deal. Now I'm not so sure about a deal getting done.

I'm somewhat worried about that, but at the same time, understand that the players cannot come out and say they like the deal, it would kill any ability to negotiate off of it. I'm hoping the players don't love the current deal, but are hoping some negotiations will take place this week and they will accept wherever they get next week. Wishful thinking, but that's what I'm going with for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's making me very scared that the majority of the players are saying it's not a good deal. Now I'm not so sure about a deal getting done.

Well I think they're still looking at it from the position of why they should have to take a major paycut when revenue has increased so much and the league hasn't presented great evidence that it's necessary. The arguments are basically that 50/50 seems fair and it's what other league's are doing.

Eventually though I'm guessing they'll realize they're going to lose no matter what. This is their best chance to limit how much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's true, the question becomes... is it reasonable to expect that contracts will be honoured based on previous growth patterns?

I just checked using the NHLs 5% growth estimate, and my understanding of the "make whole" provision. Their math isn't consistent, or they're attempting some chicanery.

Details per: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570

On one hand, when setting the cap, the league is estimating flat revenues for '12-13. $3.303B. In the "Make whole" provision they say 5% growth.

Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.)

But if starting year 1 revenue at $3.303B, the shortfalls they estimate would actually be year 2 and 3, and the year 1 shortfall would be $231M. Over six years, the deal falls short by $63M. ($442M lost in first 3 years, $379M gained in the last 3.)

And the actual share percentages, assuming everything over $1.883B is used to repay the shortfalls, are: 57, 54.3, 51.7, 49.2, 46.9, and 44.7. If the deal was extended for the 7th year, the total shortfall would be recouped, and the actual player's share in year 7 would be 48.6%.

Of course, actual growth probably won't be 5% (certainly not a consistent 5% each year), so the numbers would vary.

In any case, ~$400M is a big chunk of change, and I would expect the players to want that separate from their share in future years. Doing so would raise the average share% to around 51.5-52%.

edit: Important distinction: The shortfalls listed are from the $1.883B in compensation the players made last season; not from already-signed contracts for next year and beyond.

Edited by Buppy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked using the NHLs 5% growth estimate, and my understanding of the "make whole" provision. Their math isn't consistent, or they're attempting some chicanery.

Details per: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643570

On one hand, when setting the cap, the league is estimating flat revenues for '12-13. $3.303B. In the "Make whole" provision they say 5% growth.

But if starting year 1 revenue at $3.303B, the shortfalls they estimate would actually be year 2 and 3, and the year 1 shortfall would be $231M. Over six years, the deal falls short by $63M. ($442M lost in first 3 years, $379M gained in the last 3.)

And the actual share percentages, assuming everything over $1.883B is used to repay the shortfalls, are: 57, 54.3, 51.7, 49.2, 46.9, and 44.7. If the deal was extended for the 7th year, the total shortfall would be recouped, and the actual player's share in year 7 would be 48.6%.

Of course, actual growth probably won't be 5% (certainly not a consistent 5% each year), so the numbers would vary.

In any case, ~$400M is a big chunk of change, and I would expect the players to want that separate from their share in future years. Doing so would raise the average share% to around 51.5-52%.

edit: Important distinction: The shortfalls listed are from the $1.883B in compensation the players made last season; not from already-signed contracts for next year and beyond.

This is how the math works:

2011-12 revenue = $3.303B, therefore, using a 5% growth, the revenue for 2012-13 woudl be $3.468 billion, the players woudl be entitled to 50% = $1.734....$149 million less than the $1.883 billion the players rec'd last year. So, that assumes that salaries will be the same as last year (i.e. no rollback), but too simplified as some players would have gotten raises, etc. Doesn't really matter though, anyway you look at it, the players would be taking a 12.3% hit. Sure, they may be able to collect on their existing signed contracts if revenues continue to increase, but the current set up would cause the players salaries not to grow as league revenues grow...against the main partnership philosophy. Salaries will grow as revenues grow, but the players need to shave off the 12.3% hit first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how the math works:

2011-12 revenue = $3.303B, therefore, using a 5% growth, the revenue for 2012-13 woudl be $3.468 billion, the players woudl be entitled to 50% = $1.734....$149 million less than the $1.883 billion the players rec'd last year. So, that assumes that salaries will be the same as last year (i.e. no rollback), but too simplified as some players would have gotten raises, etc. Doesn't really matter though, anyway you look at it, the players would be taking a 12.3% hit. Sure, they may be able to collect on their existing signed contracts if revenues continue to increase, but the current set up would cause the players salaries not to grow as league revenues grow...against the main partnership philosophy. Salaries will grow as revenues grow, but the players need to shave off the 12.3% hit first.

I understand that, but also in their proposal is this:

the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion

It's inconsistent. They use one estimate for the cap, and a different, more favorable, estimate explaining the make whole provision. Using the cap estimate in the make whole provision produces the shortfalls I listed.

I know they are just estimates, and in the end actual revenue will be used. I was just pointing out the inconsistency and the fact that under the more conservative estimates, growth may not be enough to pay back what's lost at first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that, but also in their proposal is this:

It's inconsistent. They use one estimate for the cap, and a different, more favorable, estimate explaining the make whole provision. Using the cap estimate in the make whole provision produces the shortfalls I listed.

I know they are just estimates, and in the end actual revenue will be used. I was just pointing out the inconsistency and the fact that under the more conservative estimates, growth may not be enough to pay back what's lost at first.

Cap would seem irrelevant for the first year anyway since the teams could go over it. The cap isn't what controls the players' salaries, that just allows teams to be competitive (i.e. one team can't overspend everyone). At the end of the day, if every team spent to the cap, the players would be giving money back at the end of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0