| Author |
 Topic  |
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2012 : 23:13:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by @valanche
How does revenue sharing work for players?
If the league makes X amount of dollars and the players have a 57 percent of all revenue then...
each player in the league makes equal amounts of the players share of the revenue?
66 is > than 99
There is a holdback amount from player salaries that goes into escrow, and is divvied up between players and owners (via revenue sharing arrangement) once all hockey related revenues are calculated at the end of the year. Wikipedia has a good explanation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_salary_cap:
"Notwithstanding the cap and the nominal value of the players' contracts, the CBA stipulates that a fixed percentage of total league revenues (currently 57%) is to be paid to the players each season. To ensure compliance with this provision a percentage of each player's salary is withheld in escrow until the season is over, at which time the funds are divided between the players and owners so as to balance the aggregate league payrolls to the agreed percentage. In the first season of the current CBA, revenues exceeded expectations to such a margin that players received the entire escrow back plus additional funds from the owners, however in subsequent seasons this has not been the case. For instance, in the first quarter of the 2010-2011 season, the escrow rate was 17%." |
 |
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 06:00:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Really Nuxfan - a contract that doubled the profits for the league and still increased in average player salaries is not benefitial to both- tell me someone who doesn't think it benefits both in a major way.
THE OWNERS. Otherwise, we would not be going through this drama. If there was such a huge benefit to both sides, and both sides were peachy with how things were, then this would be a simple rubber stamp extension to the existing CBA. Hell, there was even a provision in the CBA that said if neither team requested it be reopened (I think a year before expiry), that it would just roll over and continue on.
The owners are risking labour strife and the possibility that they'll have to lockout players in September. Does this sound like a happy participant in a contract?
quote:
Tell me how you would feel if you were asked to take 22% pay cut
It is relative. If I'm taking a paycut from 100K to 78K, that sucks and I don't like it because its a significant chunk of money and deeply affects my standard of living. If I'm taking a pay cut from 5M to 3.9M, thats an inconvenience and I may need to wait another year to get that new summer cottage in Muskoka, but guess what, I'll still find a way to survive.
Players are not money grubbing idiots, they understand that they're extremely privileged to earn as much as they do playing hockey. They'll bitch and complain about taking a pay cut, but in the end they'll do it because earning millions a year in North America playing a sport is better than nearly any other alternative.
You think the owners are unhappy with an 1.7 billion dollar increase in revenue. Its not unhappy its Greed. Pretty sure there are entire countries that could use 1.7 billion dollar increase. Complete joke.
Your right, the players are not money grubbing idiots, but they have owners that willing to approve ridiculous contracts at ridiculous amounts of money so they can have a star and put people in the stands. Its not the players who started the inflationary salaries it was some joke of owner who started it. Now they want to say, oh hey sorry players I can't afford to pay you that money that I promised you, I need 22% of that back. In the real world that would cause a walk out in a heart beat - union or not. Hockey players are no different.
I will go back to something you said earlier, we don't know yet where the two sides will agree on the contract, but you can bet it will not be close to the NHLs starting point |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 09:27:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
You think the owners are unhappy with an 1.7 billion dollar increase in revenue. Its not unhappy its Greed. Pretty sure there are entire countries that could use 1.7 billion dollar increase. Complete joke.
Your right, the players are not money grubbing idiots, but they have owners that willing to approve ridiculous contracts at ridiculous amounts of money so they can have a star and put people in the stands. Its not the players who started the inflationary salaries it was some joke of owner who started it. Now they want to say, oh hey sorry players I can't afford to pay you that money that I promised you, I need 22% of that back. In the real world that would cause a walk out in a heart beat - union or not. Hockey players are no different.
I will go back to something you said earlier, we don't know yet where the two sides will agree on the contract, but you can bet it will not be close to the NHLs starting point
Porkchop, of course the owners are not unhappy with increased revenues. They're unhappy with the agreement under which those revenues are divided, and how those revenues can and must be earned and spent within their league. They are 2 different things - the CBA is not all about revenues.
I agree, the owners are to blame for much of the problem within the NHL, it is what it is. Building a competative team is difficult when you're battling 29 other owners to get the same guy, they all look for ways around the rules they've created. However the owners realize this, and are trying to structure an agreement that effectively closes loopholes that they have found. I have no problem with them proactively trying to save themselves from themselves. Some of the rule changes they've suggested would do just that. Forget comparisons to the real world, this would not happen in the real world.
I do agree that the final CBA will probably not resemble this first offer from the owners. However, I doubt it will be much like the existing CBA either.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 10:15:55
|
You think the owners are unhappy with an 1.7 billion dollar increase in revenue. Its not unhappy its Greed. Pretty sure there are entire countries that could use 1.7 billion dollar increase. Complete joke.
Take a look at this, which is the release by Forbes on Team valuations in 2011.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikeozanian/2011/11/30/the-business-of-hockey/
It's a great view of the state of the league. If you are not going to read the article, here are the highlights that I found:
1 - 18 of 30 teams lost money, this is before paying the bank for loans and other long term debts.
2 - Even though revenues increased year over year, earnings (profits) dropped by 21%. The largest contribution factor is that players salaries increased by an average of 10%.
3 - Take Toronto, Montreal, and NYR out of the NHL and the NHL would have LOST around $40 million (League profits at $126 million, TOR/MTL/NYR combined for $160 million).
4 - Profits of $126 million on $3.2 billion in revenue is less than 4% profit. That is considered a 'sick' company in the real world. Most companies are shooting for 6% at a min with 10% a realistic target. A 4% return is not a good investment.
People have to remember the CBA is has revenue sharing, not profit sharing. Players are taking 57% off the top, leaving the owners with 43% to pay every other bill and try to break even or even make a buck.
ANY company in the world would be gone in less than a year with that same structure. The NFL has a 48% split to the player, the NBA is 50/50. The NHL is likely asking for a bit much at 46% and it will not likely land there. But 57% is absurd.
I don't think any company in the world would be chastized for trying to break even. The players salaries are skyrocketting past the profits a team is making. I get that the billionairre playboys who own teams are not in it for the money. But how long can they last losing money???
Something's got to give.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 10:16:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Really Nuxfan - a contract that doubled the profits for the league and still increased in average player salaries is not benefitial to both- tell me someone who doesn't think it benefits both in a major way.
THE OWNERS. Otherwise, we would not be going through this drama. If there was such a huge benefit to both sides, and both sides were peachy with how things were, then this would be a simple rubber stamp extension to the existing CBA. Hell, there was even a provision in the CBA that said if neither team requested it be reopened (I think a year before expiry), that it would just roll over and continue on.
The owners are risking labour strife and the possibility that they'll have to lockout players in September. Does this sound like a happy participant in a contract?
quote:
Tell me how you would feel if you were asked to take 22% pay cut
It is relative. If I'm taking a paycut from 100K to 78K, that sucks and I don't like it because its a significant chunk of money and deeply affects my standard of living. If I'm taking a pay cut from 5M to 3.9M, thats an inconvenience and I may need to wait another year to get that new summer cottage in Muskoka, but guess what, I'll still find a way to survive.
Players are not money grubbing idiots, they understand that they're extremely privileged to earn as much as they do playing hockey. They'll bitch and complain about taking a pay cut, but in the end they'll do it because earning millions a year in North America playing a sport is better than nearly any other alternative.
You think the owners are unhappy with an 1.7 billion dollar increase in revenue. Its not unhappy its Greed. Pretty sure there are entire countries that could use 1.7 billion dollar increase. Complete joke.
Your right, the players are not money grubbing idiots, but they have owners that willing to approve ridiculous contracts at ridiculous amounts of money so they can have a star and put people in the stands. Its not the players who started the inflationary salaries it was some joke of owner who started it. Now they want to say, oh hey sorry players I can't afford to pay you that money that I promised you, I need 22% of that back. In the real world that would cause a walk out in a heart beat - union or not. Hockey players are no different.
I will go back to something you said earlier, we don't know yet where the two sides will agree on the contract, but you can bet it will not be close to the NHLs starting point
Tell me Porkchop,
which NHL owners are the ones that made a profit, contributing to that 1.7 billion profit you speak of?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 11:20:51
|
Let me help answer that Slozo. Let me show you all the uber-greedy owners out there. 
Below is a list of the teams, sorted by operating income (profit). The list is a little cloudy, but the first number is revenues in millions then profits in millions.
The 12 money making teams(green) made a combined $252 million while the 18 money losing teams(red) lost $126 million.
Team Revenue ($mil) Operating Income ($mil)
Toronto Maple Leafs 193 81.8
Montreal Canadiens 165 47.7
New York Rangers 169 41.4
Vancouver Canucks 146 23.5
Edmonton Oilers 96 17.3
Detroit Red Wings 127 16.3
Chicago Blackhawks 118 8.7
Colorado Avalanche 83 6.1
Philadelphia Flyers 111 3.2
Ottawa Senators 100 2.8
Boston Bruins 125 2.7
Calgary Flames 105 1.1
Pittsburgh Penguins 110 -0.2
Dallas Stars 90 -1.1
Los Angeles Kings 101 -2
St Louis Blues 78 -2.7
Carolina Hurricanes 81 -4.4
Winnipeg Jets 71 -5.2
Buffalo Sabres 87 -5.6
Minnesota Wild 97 -5.9
New Jersey Devils 100 -6.1
Florida Panthers 81 -7
Washington Capitals 94 -7.5
Nashville Predators 82 -7.5
San Jose Sharks 96 -7.8
New York Islanders 63 -8.1
Anaheim Ducks 84 -8.4
Tampa Bay Lightning 87 -8.5
Columbus Blue Jackets 80 -13.7
Phoenix Coyotes 70 -24.4
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 12:27:59
|
For the record, I have not confused profits with revenue. I have looked back to where I have made them one and the same and I cannot find that. My apologies if I made it confusing between profits and revenue.
Beans what your article has proven to me is that most teams have increased REVENUE but have overspent so they lost their PROFIT. How is that the players fault? Why do they have to pay for owners that continually offer inflated contracts to attract the talent. Its funny how the last CBA was supposed fix the overspending on contracts but it was the owners themselves who worked around the CBA to create the inflated players salaries. Now they want to blame the players and take it back again. Once again the employee pays for the owners stupidity.
If some owner wants to pay Parise and Suter almost 8 mil a year each when hes already losing 5.9 mil a year with his current salaries, you can't blame the player - Minnesota I believe has 98% sellouts too so you really can't blame market area - whos left - the owners who approved to overspend.
I know it seems like no big deal to the players making huge salaries, but you have to remember this still affects pensions, benefits, retirees, and those on small one way contracts or even those on two way contracts it affects the NHL portion of their contract.
I just can't get past the owners making the players pay for the owners inability to run a business.
Your right Beans something has to give - its called don't spend money you don't have! If that means you can't make it in the location your at, then move it. If means you can no longer run your franchise, sell it to someone who can. Maybe the League should look at going to fewer teams again and moving franshises into more desireable locations.
Lets also not forget the 30 mil a year PROFITS the NHL is losing running a franchise they refuse to let move to new location where maybe more REVENUE and PROFITS can be made.
The NHL made their REVENUES on the back of the Canadian franchises and they refuse to bring more franchises here. They made their REVENUES on having the best players in the world playing in their league. They lost PROFITS because of their own owners screwing the system they wanted and negotiated last contract. In no way should the players be paying for the owners mistakes.
Everyone know the players will likely settle for a 50/50 just like the NBA did. (Hey Beans the NBA was at 57% take for the players until they negotiated a new CBA last season)
Listen, it is hard for me to accept millionaire sports stars crying that they will have to make 5.2 million instead 6 mil but it just drives me crazy when players or (employees as I look at it) pay for the sins of the owners. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 12:50:05
|
When the cap floor is $48 million (or whatever it is) and the team might still have to pay into the player's escrow accounts, how do you not see the issue??
The league revenues are $3.2 billion. 30 teams at $48 million per team at the cap floor is $1.440 billion. Using Edmonton as an example, they pay around $7 million under the cap. However, as a team who made money, they have to not only add to the player's escrow but they have to share revenues with other teams.
You are 100% correct that it's not the players fault exclusively. As I previously stated, the CBA is also an agreement between owners. The players do get caught in the middle a bit but still, 57% is absurd. The NBA was absurd as well. 50/50 is still too high in my opinion but that is more realistic.
A 50/50 split would be around a $53 million cap max. I also like the idea of the floor and ceiling being closer so that teams can't mail it in.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 12:54:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
When the cap floor is $48 million (or whatever it is) and the team might still have to pay into the player's escrow accounts, how do you not see the issue??
The league revenues are $3.2 billion. 30 teams at $48 million per team at the cap floor is $1.440 billion. Using Edmonton as an example, they pay around $7 million under the cap. However, as a team who made money, they have to not only add to the player's escrow but they have to share revenues with other teams.
You are 100% correct that it's not the players fault exclusively. As I previously stated, the CBA is also an agreement between owners. The players do get caught in the middle a bit but still, 57% is absurd. The NBA was absurd as well. 50/50 is still too high in my opinion but that is more realistic.
A 50/50 split would be around a $53 million cap max. I also like the idea of the floor and ceiling being closer so that teams can't mail it in.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
I do see the issue but I don't have to agree that the players have to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 13:10:23
|
So, the players should keep on getting paid until the there is no more NHL??
Most owners are losing money.Bottom line, the players will pay for it regardless. No different than other union situations that have resulted in bad situations for the company. If the players do not budge, eventually there the league goes bust.
The players are paying for it regardless because the owners are not making money. If the owners were pulling in double digit profits we would be having a very different conversation, but that is not reality.
If the owners are not making money and the players shouldn't pay for the shortfall, who should pay for the shortfall?? To you point about Minny and the sell out, what else can they do to make more money?? Charge more for tickets??? Buy a bus and sell the plane?? What???
57% is absurd.
50% is reasonable.
46% is a lowball.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 07/18/2012 13:11:47 |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 13:22:45
|
Lets see if I can make you see my point
The New Jersey devils spent the cap limit of 70.2 mil in salaries last season.
They had a profit loss of 6.1 mil.
Had they only spent to cap floor of 48 mil they would have been looking at 16 mil in profit gain. Its that easy. If you don't have the money don't spend it. If the owners had not made ridiculous offers to bypass their own CBA then it would be easier to have enough talent to be competitive and only spend to the cap floor.
If you want to make money, run your business to make money, if you want to win championships, run your business to win championships.
Your right the players will pay because they want to play, they want to play for the best league. No different then you and I would continue to work if we were put into the same situations, only you and I would likely get more options to work elsewhere should we not like it.
It still does not mean I have to agree with it.
|
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 13:40:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Lets see if I can make you see my point
The New Jersey devils spent the cap limit of 70.2 mil in salaries last season.
They had a profit loss of 6.1 mil.
Had they only spent to cap floor of 48 mil they would have been looking at 16 mil in profit gain. Its that easy. If you don't have the money don't spend it. If the owners had not made ridiculous offers to bypass their own CBA then it would be easier to have enough talent to be competitive and only spend to the cap floor.
If you want to make money, run your business to make money, if you want to win championships, run your business to win championships.
Your right the players will pay because they want to play, they want to play for the best league. No different then you and I would continue to work if we were put into the same situations, only you and I would likely get more options to work elsewhere should we not like it.
It still does not mean I have to agree with it.
this looks like the perfect blueprint for creating a 2-tier NHL |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 15:05:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Lets see if I can make you see my point
The New Jersey devils spent the cap limit of 70.2 mil in salaries last season.
They had a profit loss of 6.1 mil.
Had they only spent to cap floor of 48 mil they would have been looking at 16 mil in profit gain. Its that easy. If you don't have the money don't spend it. If the owners had not made ridiculous offers to bypass their own CBA then it would be easier to have enough talent to be competitive and only spend to the cap floor.
If you want to make money, run your business to make money, if you want to win championships, run your business to win championships.
Your right the players will pay because they want to play, they want to play for the best league. No different then you and I would continue to work if we were put into the same situations, only you and I would likely get more options to work elsewhere should we not like it.
It still does not mean I have to agree with it.
this looks like the perfect blueprint for creating a 2-tier NHL
DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner.
The owners decided long ago that parity was the key to long term success. If the past 7 years in any indication, they were right!! So bringing the salary floor and ceiling closer together and ensuring the values make sense is key to long term success.
Also, I think you did not consider revenue sharing. Even if the Devils pay to the bottom end, that $16 million in 'profit' goes into revenue sharing and the players escrow.
Why can't the owners have the opportunity to win a championship and make money?? Why do they have to choose????
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 17:05:23
|
Beans I calculated in the Devils loss of 6mil this year into that 16 mil profit, that should already include and revenue share and payment to players escrow because that is based on league revenues not team profits. The only thing it would not include is league profit sharing amongst the haves and have nots.
And by the looks of things from the list of team revenues and profits that Beans provided - there already is a 2 tiered NHL. Face it the teams that are listed at the top of the money making categories have and always will be there. The bottom feeders have always been bottom feeders.
Also again if the owners did not approve contracts that so call circumvent the cap system then there is parity, salaries do not inflate so grossly as to take profits from the team because the owners don't screw each other with these ridiculous high salary and long term contracts.
So their answer is lets claw back money from the players and reduce player movement so the owners can stop themselves from screwing each other. The owners don't play by there own rules so they punish the players.
If they played by their own rules they can win championships, they can have parity, and they can make profits.
Shame on the players for accepting the gross amounts of money these saintly owners have thrown at them. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 17:15:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
And by the looks of things from the list of team revenues and profits that Beans provided - there already is a 2 tiered NHL. Face it the teams that are listed at the top of the money making categories have and always will be there. The bottom feeders have always been bottom feeders.
When I said "two-tiered", I was referring to on-ice performance and not revenue. In the scenario you described, only the richest teams would be able to spend near the cap, and therefore could throw out offers to get players that other teams could not afford. Over time, those teams would be able to build substantially better teams than poorer franchises, and the cycle would never end - players would never go to poorer teams because their chances of winning would be less. That would be the end of any sort of parity.
quote:
Also again if the owners did not approve contracts that so call circumvent the cap system then there is parity, salaries do not inflate so grossly as to take profits from the team because the owners don't screw each other with these ridiculous high salary and long term contracts.
So their answer is lets claw back money from the players and reduce player movement so the owners can stop themselves from screwing each other. The owners don't play by there own rules so they punish the players.
If they played by their own rules they can win championships, they can have parity, and they can make profits.
Shame on the players for accepting the gross amounts of money these saintly owners have thrown at them.
The owners did play by their own rules - they just didn't make their rules stringent enough to be effective. They're trying to rectify that, as part of the CBA.
Shame on the players? Not really - we're all human and will take what is offered to us. But the reality is that the NHL is a partnership between owners and players, and players (and perhaps moreso, player agents) should have at least realized that it could not continue like this for long. The position we're in now is a result of a lot of short-sightedness from both sides. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 17:39:15
|
Lets not bulls*** about the owners followed their own rules. They found a loop hole in the CBA that allowed them not to follow the INTENT of the rules. But I digress you are indeed right they did follow the rules just not the intent. Still there own fault not the players.
Parity in performance could happen but if I use my favourite team as an example it blows that theory out of the water. The Leafs are consistently near or at the max cap. What good has that done them. Phoenix is good example of team that is had a cap hit last year near the bottom of the cap 48.2 mil ( think) and they have been consistent in the playoffs and made the conference final last season. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 17:48:59
|
| Nuxfan - my statement about shame on the players was a tongue in cheek statement, sarcastic. I know its hard to read sarcarsm but thats what it was. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 19:06:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Beans I calculated in the Devils loss of 6mil this year into that 16 mil profit, that should already include and revenue share and payment to players escrow because that is based on league revenues not team profits. The only thing it would not include is league profit sharing amongst the haves and have nots.
And by the looks of things from the list of team revenues and profits that Beans provided - there already is a 2 tiered NHL. Face it the teams that are listed at the top of the money making categories have and always will be there. The bottom feeders have always been bottom feeders.
Also again if the owners did not approve contracts that so call circumvent the cap system then there is parity, salaries do not inflate so grossly as to take profits from the team because the owners don't screw each other with these ridiculous high salary and long term contracts.
So their answer is lets claw back money from the players and reduce player movement so the owners can stop themselves from screwing each other. The owners don't play by there own rules so they punish the players.
If they played by their own rules they can win championships, they can have parity, and they can make profits.
Shame on the players for accepting the gross amounts of money these saintly owners have thrown at them.
Bzzzzz. Wrong answer Vanna. What's his prize?
As early as 5 seasons ago both Edmonton and Calgary were have not teams who were losing money. The only reason either of those teams are making cash is the oil money in Alberta means the hockey teams are status symbols. $300 lower bowl tickets and $3500 a game skyboxes are par for the course.
If we are going to face it, we better face the facts and not the assumptions.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 20:15:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Parity in performance could happen but if I use my favourite team as an example it blows that theory out of the water. The Leafs are consistently near or at the max cap. What good has that done them. Phoenix is good example of team that is had a cap hit last year near the bottom of the cap 48.2 mil ( think) and they have been consistent in the playoffs and made the conference final last season.
In any single season anything can happen in regards to performance to any team. For the record, PHX has not consistently made the playoffs - they have for the last 3 years, but before that they went 6 years without a playoff appearance. Teams like PHX (and NSH, NYI, TB) got to where they are the hard way - drafting well and developing players over time.
But say you have a situation where teams must be profitable - therefore TOR, VAN, MTL, NYR are able to spend to the cap, while teams like PHX, CBJ, TB are not because they can't afford it. Over time, the balance of power in the NHL would shift dramatically. Players for poor teams would leave those teams as soon as they could (or would get offer sheets) because the rich teams could afford to pay them more. Further, any UFA's that came up would be snapped up by rich teams (do you think MIN would be able to afford Parise/Suter in profit-only NHL?). In a few years time 6 or 7 teams would be stacked, and the others would effectively become farm teams for the rich. And the NHL would die in most markets in the US.
This system would benefit you and I - both of us cheer for teams that would spend to the cap and be one of the "haves". But the NHL would suffer massively for it.
|
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 05:41:24
|
Wow Beans you don't have go all smart ass with your response just because I am enjoying a good arguement here. Aren't we suppose share our opinions and get into good discussion here in the Forums. Relax big fella, its all good fun.
So what I read in your last post is that the owners of those two great canadian franchises made a smart business decision and said "hey I think theres more money to be had here in Alberta" so they raised the ticket prices and targeted some of those wonderfully deep pocketed Oil companies and the above average salaried employees that work for them. They now turn profits and they didn't claw it back from the players.
To sound like you - HOLY CRAP BATMAN - IT WORKS - YOU WIN THE PRIZE.
If your worried about the everday average guy affording tickets, who cares, its all about the profits right. And hey the owners gotta pay for the ridiculous 14 yr 100mil contracts they still like to sneak in before they negotiate a new CBA. But were not going to blame the owners, they just need to make a buck, thats the bottom line.
I think I will wait for when the players make their counterproposal - I think someone is growing tired with this arguement and is getting testy. Anyways should be interesting to see how the players respond since the NHL really set the tone of negotiations with their crazy low ball proposal. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 05:59:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Wow Beans you don't have go all smart ass with your response just because I am enjoying a good arguement here. Aren't we suppose share our opinions and get into good discussion here in the Forums. Relax big fella, its all good fun.
So what I read in your last post is that the owners of those two great canadian franchises made a smart business decision and said "hey I think theres more money to be had here in Alberta" so they raised the ticket prices and targeted some of those wonderfully deep pocketed Oil companies and the above average salaried employees that work for them. They now turn profits and they didn't claw it back from the players.
To sound like you - HOLY CRAP BATMAN - IT WORKS - YOU WIN THE PRIZE.
If your worried about the everday average guy affording tickets, who cares, its all about the profits right. And hey the owners gotta pay for the ridiculous 14 yr 100mil contracts they still like to sneak in before they negotiate a new CBA. But were not going to blame the owners, they just need to make a buck, thats the bottom line.
I think I will wait for when the players make their counterproposal - I think someone is growing tired with this arguement and is getting testy. Anyways should be interesting to see how the players respond since the NHL really set the tone of negotiations with their crazy low ball proposal.
If you can't take a joke, then don't joke around Porkie. It is YOU that sounds like the one with his knickers in a knot . . . and that's not to say you haven't added to the discussion here, because you have.
But chill out, dude.
And you need to brush up on your reading comprehension, Beans simply stated that the ONLY REAL MEASURABLE REASON that the Oilers and Flames are not in the "have-nots" category, is the "oil effect". Nothing more, nothing less.
Just like Winnipeg leaving was all about an incredibly low Canadian dollar making that franchise unsustainable. Outside influences that have nothing really to do with the hockey market often have a dramatic effect on how a franchise does, and how they can operate.
And I'll leave you with this, Porkie:
Why do you say it's a crazy, lowball proposal from the owners? Can you compare it to the other leagues so we can see just how crazy it is?
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 07:08:50
|
Does it really seem like my "knickers are in knot". They really aren't. Just having fun thats all. I knew Beans likes to get goin on these topics, I enjoy them too. I thought Beans was getting his "knickers in a knot" so I was going to stop. My apologies to all.
Funny though Slozo, kind of ironic you coming to the defence of Beans.
I do not believe I read Beans post wrong though. To me he is stating very clearly that the Flames and Oilers made a concious effort to target a fanbase with deeper pockets in order to help them be haves instead of have nots. There is nothing wrong with that. They are fortunate to be in a Market that the Oil and Gas industry has created a fanbase with the type of incomes that can afford the higher prices. Good for those franchises
Slozo, what makes it low ball is the amount of money they are asking back for with their first proposal. From what I have read every 1% the NHL claws back from the 57% is 33 mil being removed from the players salaries and benefits. Benefits include pensions. Its easy to do the math from there thats alot of money to be asking to take from the players and not every player in the NHL is making 5 mil a year and having long term careers.
Now having said that if the initial proposal had a timeline to get down to 46%, lets say over the next 5 years, then there is some sign of good faith. It shows some respect for the dollar amounts they are asking the players to give up. But a one time removal of that sum of money is a little harsh. Reality says it will likely end up exactly like the NBA - which surprisely were at 57% for the players before their last CBA.
Heres another good article on the contract proposal. Its kind of what I'm trying to say. The owners are negotiating against themselves per say. Unfortunately because of the owners own way of conducting business amongst each other, the players have to pay. I get that it has to be that way, I too believe that the owners should be able to make as much money as they can. But it is there own fault for the way the business is conducted in the NHL today. It also supports that we already have a two tiered system in the NHL, and the owners created it themselves.
http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/cba-war-between-owners-153800694--nhl.html
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 08:54:09
|
It most certainly DID seem that you had your knickers in a knot. Re-read your post, Porkchops.
I was not coming to Beans' defence - he doesn't need that. I was actually trying to let YOU know how you sounded, and I chimed in thinking that you might see reason, the opinion coming from an unrelated party that was almost never on Beans' side (me).
But I see that I have failed. Carry on, pork loin.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 09:01:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
From what I have read every 1% the NHL claws back from the 57% is 33 mil being removed from the players salaries and benefits. Benefits include pensions. Its easy to do the math from there thats alot of money to be asking to take from the players and not every player in the NHL is making 5 mil a year and having long term careers.
OMG. Are you serious, the players should be making a stink because the clawback eats into their PENSIONS? The money that they earn AFTER they've finished earning tens of millions of dollars over a career might be jeopardized?
That might be a surefire way to get the public fully on the side of the owners. For the players sake, I hope you are not Donald Fehr in real life  |
Edited by - nuxfan on 07/19/2012 09:02:08 |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 09:27:26
|
Okay Slozo, point well taken, I went back and read my posts.
To be clear - certainly not my intent to go all crazy or seem like I had my knickers in knot. I was seriously trying to have a fun tit for tat discussion on the topic. I can see where I have gotten a little carried away. It is not easy to argue for players that are making such large salaries - I tried.
I will however stick by the fact the I feel the owners have really done this to themselves.
Nuxfan - I am not totally serious about pension portion being a huge part for the players to argue for, its part of where that revenue sharing money goes so I included it in the arguement. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 09:34:24
|
Okay I will switch things up now.
So your sitting at the bargaining table and someone comes and whispers in your ear that Weber just signed that offer sheet from Philly. The exact kind of contract the owners just proposed to get rid of.
I personally don't think Bettman would be smiling to much about that and the Donald Fehr has just been givin a little more fuel for his counter proposal.
Definetly will make for an interesting conversation between the two sides. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 10:18:11
|
I did not take offense to anything nor did I intend to offend anyone. I too was playing the tit for tat but the written word creates challenges in seeing that.
Regardless Chop, I don't disagree that this is about the owners/GM's and their rules between each other. The owners did do this to themselves but it's the player who are benefiting from this, not the owners. They do have to be saved from themselves and the only people who can pay for that is the players. I appreciate that you don't have to agree with it, but that is the reality of the situation.
I would think that both Bettman and Fuhr are not happy about the Weber offer sheet. It is everything that is wrong with the current system and what has to get fixed. I would say this situation likely inspires both sides to agree on the appropriate changes.
I recall a quote from a former NBA player (I can't remember who is was, might have been Patrick Ewing) during a CBA negotiation who was making something like $18 million a season. He made a comment along the lines of, 'it's not about the money, it's about feeding our families." I am reminded of this as even the lowest paid plugger in the NHL is making over $500,000 a year. Again, that is the low end. Very few players are pay that level. I took a look at the 15th highest payroll team (CBJ) to look at the 'average'. Their payroll is a little more then $56 million over 23 players. The average is $2.4 million. The median salary is $1.9 million. The lowest paid guy on the team is making $625,000
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 11:17:51
|
I actually do agree with you that players are the one to pay for what owners have created. The situation has gotten to the point that they are the only ones able to fix it really.
My honest view on labour relations espcially in the sports world is that the players and owners share 50/50 in responsibility in creating and maintaining a successful league.
Lets face it, if the players were to force a lockout or other measures that cause the league to lose teams, lets say even just two teams, then thats 50 or more players without a job, loss of revenue for the league which is a loss of money to players as well. The players most certainly would not want that and in fact should feel the responsibility in keeping the jobs.
Likewise the owners should have same responsibility while observing the players rights afforded to them under national labour laws.
I get the feeling the ownership of Flyers do not feel that there is anything wrong with how current contracts are made.
Has the current CBA actually expired or have both sides just agreed to start negotiations. Because if it has expired then the contract offer Weber signed would not be permitted. At least I don't think it could. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 12:46:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Porkchop73
Has the current CBA actually expired or have both sides just agreed to start negotiations. Because if it has expired then the contract offer Weber signed would not be permitted. At least I don't think it could.
No, I believe it expires on Sept 15, or some time around there. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2012 : 13:34:31
|
The amnesty thing might come into play for a number of deals which is why Philly might be doing this Weber thing today. I am not sure how the NBA structure worked but there are teams that did amnesty deals this season and last season. If the NHL is pushing for each team having and amnesty deal that can be used at any time, why not sign Weber to this huge deal?? Let's say in 3 years the Flyer's want out, AMNESTY!!!
Not saying this will happen but it could.
In the end, I hate these stupid long contracts taht circumvent the cap. However, if I am GM and I can sign Weber for 14 years and give up 4 draft picks, I am doing it too. In a heartbeat.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 00:03:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
The amnesty thing might come into play for a number of deals which is why Philly might be doing this Weber thing today. I am not sure how the NBA structure worked but there are teams that did amnesty deals this season and last season. If the NHL is pushing for each team having and amnesty deal that can be used at any time, why not sign Weber to this huge deal?? Let's say in 3 years the Flyer's want out, AMNESTY!!!
Not saying this will happen but it could.
In the end, I hate these stupid long contracts taht circumvent the cap. However, if I am GM and I can sign Weber for 14 years and give up 4 draft picks, I am doing it too. In a heartbeat.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
The amnesty thing would work for the Preds too. Again, another reason they have to match!
As for the Ewing comment Beans.....wasn't he the one who said "we make a lot of money because we spend a lot of money", or something like that? Just classic! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2012 : 12:51:58
|
Bettman comment today that the owners are not interested in playing another season (or even starting the season) under the old CBA and that if a new agreement is not in place by Sept 15th the owners will lock the players out.
I have historically stated my position to be a Pro-NHL opinion. In this case, I am still pro-NHL. Here are a few interesting points:
- The NHL proposal came down the pipe on July 16th. We are now a month later and the PA has not countered?? Sounds like someone is dragging their feet.
- The PA is tossing this crap about not having the documentation on the financials. The NHL has been providing the NHLPA with financial reports for the past 5 years. Since the last lockout the players have received the financials each year when the Cap was adjusted.
- According to Bettman's statement, he has been telling the union for the last 9-12 months that the owners would not go into the 2012/13 season under the current agreement.
I hold no illusions that there isn't at least a bit of posturing being done here by the NHL, but the time for this petty crap to be pushed through. Get an friggin deal done already. To go a month without providing a counter proposal is absurd and unacceptable. The PA had to have at least some ideas of what they wanted in their proposal to the NHL. It's not like they are drafting an original document and need all this input from the players. They have been gathering that input for months.
No winners here, only losers. Like us fans being the biggest losers.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2012 : 14:36:11
|
this should not be surprise to anyone, of course the NHL was going to lockout the players if no deal is in place. Without the threat of the lockout, there is absolutely no pressure on the NHLPA to do anything - they're more than happy playing under the current CBA.
I personally do not think that an agreement can be reached in the next 5 weeks, it looks like another shortened season to me. |
|
|
|
Guest4178
( )
|
Posted - 08/09/2012 : 16:35:50
|
Just got caught up on all the posts (good reading), and I will make one observation.
It's interesting to hear comments that the NHL is lowballing the players from one perspective (principally, the changing of the revenue-sharing percentage in the new CBA), and from another perspective, that the owners are paying insane amounts to players. (In particular, free agent signings.) Isn't the latter the opposite of being greedy?
But it's kinda hard to say the owners are completely greedy, especially when you see teams spend the money they spend on players. On one hand they may appear to be greedy by some (as it relates to changing the revenue-sharing percentage in a new CBA), but I am hard-pressed to criticize Bettman for following the directions of the owners who want him to find a better formula for revenue-sharing (or for the CBA as a whole) which saves teams from themselves.
The common theme with NHL owners is that they need a structure to save them from themselves. They (some not all) need a CBA to do what most people would do without an agreement, and that is to formulate a payroll budget, stay disciplined, and not overspend.
Now I'm not sure if I believe the rhetoric (that 20 teams are losing money), but even if 10 teams are losing money, one can criticize the owners (or gm's, etc.) for being so stupid, but regardless, what does this do for the health of the league?
I'm not really worried if players have to make 22% less with a new agreement, and if this keeps the league healthy (and teams alive), isn't this a good thing?
But if you come from the corner which thinks ownership is untrustworthy, greedy, or already making gobs of money, then I understand your reasoning. And while some teams are making gobs of money, I really believe there are a lot of franchises losing gobs of money, and that's not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2012 : 07:15:17
|
My guess, nuxfan, is that they actually get this done to start the season on time. I think both sides will work really hard to avoid a repeat of the last lock-out . . . I mean, the economy in the US is totally tanking and about to collapse as it is, and that means huge problems for at least half the teams in the US, and including a couple of Canadian teams too.
Players don't want shortened careers . . . and a smaller league because of what might be a huge effect of another lockout.
I think it meanders along until the deadlines get real close, and I think you'll see it suddenly get done.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2012 : 10:32:35
|
I agree completely Slozo. I too think a deal gets done. What I find entertaining is the propaganda and posturing from both sides. This is a perfect example of one of those situations where there are three sides to the story. In this case, the NHL side, the PA side, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2012 : 14:30:53
|
Although we have not seen a counter proposal from the NHLPA yet, I get the feeling that the two sides are very far apart - perhaps as far as last time when it took about a year to come to an agreement. Training camp is set to start Sept 12 - you really think that a deal will be suddenly hammered out in 4-5 weeks?
I don't see it - I certainly don't see a deal getting struck by Sept 12 (the start of training camp), and I see a high probability of losing games in the regular season as well. I'm pretty sure that neither side wants to see an entire season wiped out, so do feel confident that we'll have hockey before, say, Christmas - but not that far before. The NHLPA is already setting up contingency "exhibitions" in case the season doesn't start.
I guess when the NHLPA releases a position we'll get a better sense of just how far apart the two sides are, and therefore how long this might drag out. but I'm not terribly optimistic right now. |
|
|
|
Guest9895
( )
|
Posted - 08/10/2012 : 22:05:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Secondly Chop, you say realistic? We are talking about a group of about 690 player who are currently sharing in a pool of $1.82 BILLION dollars in their salary pile (That's an average of $2.6 million per player). The league is looking to bring that down to a pool of $1.47 BILLION dollars or an average of $2.13 million per player.
These guys often pay more money in income tax in a paycheck than most Canadian make in a year. We are talking about unfair to the players??? Not only that, in the 'real world' people are not negotiating 50%+ revenue as salary pools. Not even close. Most places that are running a sound business have their salaries at 5-10% of their total revenues. The value of most employees to their companies are generally 10 fold their income.
How about a bigger picture. What generates more for the economy/government coffers? Thirty-two or so billionaires getting a little more cash but paying much less taxes (as a corporation, they pay less than personal taxes) or 700 millionaires paying personal taxes?
I would give the players more cash instead of giving the owners more money based on the answer to the above questions. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2012 : 22:23:12
|
Really? You don't think those millionaire hockey players don't have accountants protecting their interests in terms of taxes?
Neither the billionaire owners or the millionaire players are paying the tax rates that you and I are paying. Not even close.
Using this logic, the government should step in and mandate that all companies double workers pay immediately to increase tax income. Unfortunately, all the companies would close up shop and everyone would be out of work.
Ultimately, the owners have the right to earn a profit. The players produce that profit for the owners and get paid for it. Again, the 43% suggested by the NHL is as absurd as the current 57% the players are getting. Stop jacking around, call it 50/50 and let's play some hockey.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
Edited by - Beans15 on 08/10/2012 22:28:55 |
|
|
|
Guest4579
( )
|
Posted - 08/11/2012 : 05:22:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Really? You don't think those millionaire hockey players don't have accountants protecting their interests in terms of taxes?
Neither the billionaire owners or the millionaire players are paying the tax rates that you and I are paying. Not even close.
Using this logic, the government should step in and mandate that all companies double workers pay immediately to increase tax income. Unfortunately, all the companies would close up shop and everyone would be out of work.
Ultimately, the owners have the right to earn a profit. The players produce that profit for the owners and get paid for it. Again, the 43% suggested by the NHL is as absurd as the current 57% the players are getting. Stop jacking around, call it 50/50 and let's play some hockey.
Millionaires can't hide money as well as corporations. Even if the players hires really good accountants. Personal taxes are higher than corporate taxes.
The second paragraph is a ridiculous leap of logic. I thought better of you. Try again and this time don't leap to preposterous conclusions.
I can do 50/50. Done. See if you and I were owners and NHLPA wouldn't that be easy? |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
2012 CBA News and Comments 
