• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
toby91_ca

Get Ready for McDavid Hype Machine

Rate this topic

71 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, kliq said:

Bob McKenzie reported 

"Original deal was expected to be $13.25M but hearing McDavid wasn't comfortable with the number and may have insisted on lowering it..."

Not sure if you are being serious or not, the comment about him being perhaps the best player ever already makes be think you are just trolling people. 

Assuming you are being legit, if this is the case, how does this reflect poorly on the PA or even the owners? Hats off to McDavid for doing what's best for the team and the players on the bottom.

Not sure why you are linking this to the salary cap, the Salary cap is directly linked to overall revenue, not the salary of the top player. With that being said, if I am McDavid I am pretty pissed if the Oilers don't spend to the cap now.

Im being dead serious.  McDavid isnt Tom Brady.  He's Steph Curry.  He needs to do whats good for the 800 other guys and take max.  The NHLPA got worked over AGAIN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Im being dead serious.  McDavid isnt Tom Brady.  He's Steph Curry.  He needs to do whats good for the 800 other guys and take max.  The NHLPA got worked over AGAIN.

Again....as Kliq stated. The Cap is linked to overall revenue.  Not the top salaries. By taking less he is actually leaving more for his peers. 

But you keep spinning whatever it is you're trying to spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Im being dead serious.  McDavid isnt Tom Brady.  He's Steph Curry.  He needs to do whats good for the 800 other guys and take max.  The NHLPA got worked over AGAIN.

I still don't see how McDavid's contract effects the PA when the salary cap is effected by revenue.

Think of it like a pie chart, the higher % McDavid gets, the lower % someone else gets. You are making it sound like if McDavid get a higher wage, everyone gets a higher wage. If it were MLB a sport with no cap, then I would agree with you, the NHL is different. 

krsmith17 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are failing to grasp that decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners 1) making less money, or 2) genrating more revenue to maintain/increase profit.  It is up to the NHLPA to make sure tbe players are compensated as much as possible.  It is up to the commisdioner and the owners he represents to make sure the league generates as much revenue/profit.  Dont feel bad, though.  The head of the NHL doesn't understand the business side of his job, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

You guys are failing to grasp that decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners 1) making less money, or 2) genrating more revenue to maintain/increase profit.  It is up to the NHLPA to make sure tbe players are compensated as much as possible.  It is up to the commisdioner and the owners he represents to make sure the league generates as much revenue/profit.  Dont feel bad, though.  The head of the NHL doesn't understand the business side of his job, either.

I understand what you are trying to say, this is the world I work in every day, but it doesn't work that way in the NHL. The salary cap is not linked to net profit, it is linked to overall revenue or gross sales.

IF what you are trying to say, is that by McDavid taking a pay cut, IF the Oilers do not spend to the cap ceiling, then McDavid is basically leaving money on the table so his owner can get richer, then yes that is a valid point. If the Oilers spend to the cap ceiling, nobody is making more money because of it as the Oilers would then be capped. It would just likely mean that their 3rd and 4th liners are making a bit more as the money is simply being distributed differently.

Not to mention, the PA cannot force McDavid to sign or not to sign a contract.

As far as #2 goes:

"Decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners generating more revenue to maintain/increase profit."

My interpretation of this statement is that you are saying that if the owners are making less money, they will then in turn generate more revenue. (I'm guessing you are implying they will be more motivated).

I'm pretty sure that NHL ownership has motivation to increase their revenue's with or without their net profit being above or below a certain point. They may struggle in certain aspects of it, but I just can't see the NHL NOT exploring new revenue streams, or NOT increasing existing revenue's based on their net profit. These teams ALWAYS want to increase their net profit. And in the case of a cap world where salary cap is linked to revenue, it is advantageous to both the player and the league to increase revenue's, not just one side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kliq said:

I understand what you are trying to say, this is the world I work in every day, but it doesn't work that way in the NHL. The salary cap is not linked to net profit, it is linked to overall revenue or gross sales.

IF what you are trying to say, is that by McDavid taking a pay cut, IF the Oilers do not spend to the cap ceiling, then McDavid is basically leaving money on the table so his owner can get richer, then yes that is a valid point. If the Oilers spend to the cap ceiling, nobody is making more money because of it as the Oilers would then be capped. It would just likely mean that their 3rd and 4th liners are making a bit more as the money is simply being distributed differently.

Not to mention, the PA cannot force McDavid to sign or not to sign a contract.

As far as #2 goes:

"Decreasing PROFIT (from increased cost [higher salaries]) leads to the owners generating more revenue to maintain/increase profit."

My interpretation of this statement is that you are saying that if the owners are making less money, they will then in turn generate more revenue. (I'm guessing you are implying they will be more motivated).

I'm pretty sure that NHL ownership has motivation to increase their revenue's with or without their net profit being above or below a certain point. They may struggle in certain aspects of it, but I just can't see the NHL NOT exploring new revenue streams, or NOT increasing existing revenue's based on their net profit. These teams ALWAYS want to increase their net profit. And in the case of a cap world where salary cap is linked to revenue, it is advantageous to both the player and the league to increase revenue's, not just one side.

I wont disagree with much of what you said.  But look at the Steph Curry situation.  Then look at the McDavid situation.  The NBA has it right.  The NHL does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

I wont disagree with much of what you said.  But look at the Steph Curry situation.  Then look at the McDavid situation.  The NBA has it right.  The NHL does not.

You don't understand how it works.

In the NHL, players are guaranteed a fixed percentage of revenue. Doesn't matter what any individual is payed. If McDavid signed a contract for $15M, or a contract for $1M, it wouldn't change the total amount payed to players by even a single penny. That's why the NHL has escrow; to make sure the players are paid exactly 50% of hockey-related revenue...not a penny more and not a penny less. If the contracts add up to more than that, the players lose some of the escrow. If it adds up to less, the owners pay players a bonus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about the McDavid contract, all this contract does is lead to another lockout. I can't believe the Oilers agreed to it. Contracts for young stars are now going to skyrocket! Just watch, the next CBA, the owners are going to lockout the players so they can have a cap on RFA's.

Hockeymom1960 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buppy said:

You don't understand how it works.

In the NHL, players are guaranteed a fixed percentage of revenue. Doesn't matter what any individual is payed. If McDavid signed a contract for $15M, or a contract for $1M, it wouldn't change the total amount payed to players by even a single penny. That's why the NHL has escrow; to make sure the players are paid exactly 50% of hockey-related revenue...not a penny more and not a penny less. If the contracts add up to more than that, the players lose some of the escrow. If it adds up to less, the owners pay players a bonus. 

And how do u get revenue to go up?  You are not grasping the increasing revenue/profit concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

And how do u get revenue to go up?  You are not grasping the increasing revenue/profit concept.

It seems to me, in this post and other previous ones, you've conflated revenue with the owners' profits. Revenue is the total amount collected before salaries and other expenses are subtracted. Revenue isn't effected by salaries. It's the full pie before the CBA dictates how it is cut up.

You get revenue to go up by selling more tickets, making more lucrative TV deals, merchandise, successful expansion, etc. And, If those things happen, profits go up for both players and owners since the pie is bigger.

If you wanted Owner's profits to go up by lowering salaries, you'd have to renegotiate the CBA so that they keep a larger portion of the pie. As it stands, McDavid eating a big piece or not doesn't effect profits because they have to hand over a set percentage of the overused metaphor anyway.  

Edited by PavelValerievichDatsyuk
kliq likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PavelValerievichDatsyuk said:

It seems to me, in this post and other previous ones, you've conflated revenue with the owners' profits. Revenue is the total amount collected before salaries and other expenses are subtracted. Revenue isn't effected by salaries. It's the full pie before the CBA dictates how it is cut up.

You get revenue to go up by selling more tickets, making more lucrative TV deals, merchandise, successful expansion, etc. And, If those things happen, profits go up for both players and owners since the pie is bigger.

If you wanted Owner's profits to go up by lowering salaries, you'd have to renegotiate the CBA so that they keep a larger portion of the pie. As it stands, McDavid eating a big piece or not doesn't effect profits because they have to hand over a set percentage of the overused metaphor anyway.  

Exactly!  So the NHLPA has ZERO to do with all of that, lile you're saying.  The NHLPA is in charge of maximizing value for the players.  Which is what I said originally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is really internal with the players....if McDavid takes a large amount, there is less left to pay the rest of the players, no impact to owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Exactly!  So the NHLPA has ZERO to do with all of that, lile you're saying.  The NHLPA is in charge of maximizing value for the players.  Which is what I said originally.

It's clear you don't understand this at all and have no idea what you're talking about. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is this blabbery? The first rule of commerce always apply in compensation and it pertains to supply and demand:

"Everything is worth what a purchaser is willing to pay for it."

I was about to insert a rant or some biblical allegory here but I trust your mediocre judgement to think the matter through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jacksoni said:

What is this blabbery? The first rule of commerce always apply in compensation and it pertains to supply and demand:

"Everything is worth what a purchaser is willing to pay for it."

I was about to insert a rant or some biblical allegory here but I trust your mediocre judgement to think the matter through.

Precisely.  And while McDavid's move helps his team out short term, it holds the players back long term.  Hard salary caps hurt the players.  It's the job of the Players Association to avoid hard salary caps.  It's the job of the PA to increase hard salary caps.  There is a pie.  A few people on here think that pies only come in one size (little caesars fault, maybe!), but they are wrong.  Half of a large pie is bigger than half of a small pie.  The league's best player taking a discount does not help the half of the pie get bigger.  It just assigns some of the current half to someone else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McDavid taking $750k less a year has zero implication on the cap, which means it has zero implication on future earning power of other players.  The NHL finding a way to become more than a niche sport and increasing revenue has an impact on the cap, therefore how much potential earning power players have.

comparing the NHL to any other sport is an apples and oranges comparison.  The NBA, MLB, and NFL all bring in more revenue.  The NBA has smaller rosters and difference cap rules enabling the players to make ridiculous salaries even compared to the other sports, making an NHL to NBA comparison more like apples to boulders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

Precisely.  And while McDavid's move helps his team out short term, it holds the players back long term.  Hard salary caps hurt the players.  It's the job of the Players Association to avoid hard salary caps.  It's the job of the PA to increase hard salary caps.  There is a pie.  A few people on here think that pies only come in one size (little caesars fault, maybe!), but they are wrong.  Half of a large pie is bigger than half of a small pie.  The league's best player taking a discount does not help the half of the pie get bigger.  It just assigns some of the current half to someone else.  

You're ignoring the opposite side of that; McDavid getting a bigger contract does nothing to help increase revenue, or raise the cap, or remove the cap.

The league's best player taking a maximum contract does not help the half of the pie get bigger. It just assigns some of the current half to someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buppy said:

You're ignoring the opposite side of that; McDavid getting a bigger contract does nothing to help increase revenue, or raise the cap, or remove the cap.

The league's best player taking a maximum contract does not help the half of the pie get bigger. It just assigns some of the current half to someone else.

That isnt the NHLPA's or McDavid's job.  You are not keeping up with the convo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

That isnt the NHLPA's or McDavid's job.  You are not keeping up with the convo.

Is it in his best interest to make every dime he can when he'll make enough in one year to live the rest of his live in relative comfort, or to help his team win a Cup?  How many all time greats are knocked down because they "never won?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

That isnt the NHLPA's or McDavid's job.  You are not keeping up with the convo.

8 hours ago, Jonas Mahonas said:

...McDavid's move helps his team out short term, it holds the players back long term.  Hard salary caps hurt the players.  It's the job of the Players Association to avoid hard salary caps.  It's the job of the PA to increase hard salary caps. ...

One of us isn't keeping up, that's for sure.

 

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