dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
362230
share rss forum feed view:
normal


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to zod5000

Re: [Hockey] Official~ NHL thread...........scores and highlites

Sure the players make a lot of money, but not nearly as much as in many other pro sports -- just look at salaries in MLB or the NFL. Besides, unless you're suggesting that the players should just give the owners everything they want for the sake of the fans, I don't see how it's even relevant. How about asking the owners to give the players everything they want for the sake of the fans? It works both ways. But historically, remember, it was always the players who were getting screwed in the early days of the NHL.


zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ZZZZZZZ

No I was just saying its hard watching rich people squabble.. lol.

I do feel the Owners should honor the existing contracts though. They were stupid enough to sign them. If they didn't want to pay so much out in salaries, no one was holding a gun to their end. The players did agree to a paycut and a salary cap after the last lockout. All the owners did was invent loopholes to keep paying more money.

If they do move to a 50/50 split it would probably need to be done gradually. Mostly because the players take in 57% right now, so you can't go straight to 50 without cutting existing contracts. I'm guessing that is what most of the impasse is right now. Figuring out how to do it.

When the NHL came out with that offer they proposed last month they didn't seem to address this. They basically offered a 50/50 split but said they would honor existing contracts. Which seemed to be a paradox, because if you honour existing contracts you don't have a 50/50 split.

My guess is we lose the season. I'm guessing the players would be willing to go down to a 50/50 split, but they're not going to let the NHL chop their contracts again, only to watch them find new loopholes.

Hopefully whenever it gets resolved they close the loopholes (like contract averaging). I find it extremely odd that Owners need the players to put a leash on the owners.


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

They players have already agreed to 50/50, but you're right about "how to get there" being a problem - players want a step-down, owners want instant 50/50.

I think the bigger issue right now is the contract rights that the owners want to impose that would basically reduce the negotiating rights of the individual players across the board.


Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

They players have already agreed to 50/50, but you're right about "how to get there" being a problem - players want a step-down, owners want instant 50/50.

I think the bigger issue right now is the contract rights that the owners want to impose that would basically reduce the negotiating rights of the individual players across the board.

No the player want to Delink and create a guaranteed raise every year

Stolen from another Board

Originally Posted by Freudian
Since there seems to be some confusion about NHLPAs proposal and some think it's a 50/50 split they are offering, I thought it would be appropriate to clarify.

NHLPA wants a guaranteed $1.91B in collective salary that will grow with 1.75% each year as long as it means the players share of HRR is larger than 50%. When 50% of HRR means a higher total salary for the players, it switches over to a linked system where players get 50/50.

The beauty of this system for the players is that owners wear the full risk of low growth in revenue.

Lets take a few different growth rates to illustrate how silly it is to call the players proposal a 50/50 split. I'm ignoring the lost games this year.

Scenario 1: Fans are really upset and revenue decreases with 1% each year on average

Players share of HRR
Year 1: 58,6%
Year 2: 60,3%
Year 3: 61,9%
Year 4: 63,7%
Year 5: 65,4%
Year 6: 67,3%

Scenario 2: Revenue increases with 2% each year on average
Year 1: 56,9%
Year 2: 56,8%
Year 3: 56,6%
Year 4: 56,5%
Year 5: 56,4%
Year 6: 56,2%

Scenario 3: Revenue increases with 5% each year on average
Year 1: 55,3%
Year 2: 53,6%
Year 3: 51,9%
Year 4: 50,3%
Year 5: 50,0%
Year 6: 50,0%

Scenario 4: Revenue increases with 7% each year on average
Year 1: 54,3%
Year 2: 51,6%
Year 3: 50,0%
Year 4: 50,0%
Year 5: 50,0%
Year 6: 50,0%

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ZZZZZZZ

The owners want the players to make less, but they're also the ones offering large contracts.

Why do they need to players to be on board. Surely they could show some restraint and reign in the contracts? I find it really wierd they need the players to leash themselves because they have no fiscal restraint?


Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by zod5000:

The owners want the players to make less, but they're also the ones offering large contracts.

Why do they need to players to be on board. Surely they could show some restraint and reign in the contracts? I find it really wierd they need the players to leash themselves because they have no fiscal restraint?

Can't do that. That's called collusion


shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

»en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion



HiVolt
Premium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to Doonz

said by Doonz:

Can't do that. That's called collusion

Hasn't stopped oil companies, and gas stations...

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by HiVolt:

said by Doonz:

Can't do that. That's called collusion

Hasn't stopped oil companies, and gas stations...

See shaner link.


dirtyjeffer
Anons on ignore, but not due to fear.
Premium
join:2002-02-21
London, ON
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

Pat Quinn had a good point. In the very short career of an NHL player which rarely goes more than 10 or 12 years, anyone now playing who was also active in the 2004-05 season is on track to lose two seasons out of his career because of these friggin' lockouts, and that is a huge deal that also affects his stats and standings. Not that it makes any difference to Buttman and the other fat cats, who never do anything more physically demanding than lighting a cigar.

they mentioned the very same thing on TSN the other night...they used Jerome Iginla as an example...assuming this season is lost, those 2 years cost him $14 million in pay, and likely 70 goals...his is getting close to being a 600 goal player, that that 70 goals really hurts his career stats too.
--
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1
reply to Doonz

said by Doonz:

No the player want to Delink and create a guaranteed raise every year

Unless that's a new offer, it's completely and utterly false.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

No the player want to Delink and create a guaranteed raise every year

Unless that's a new offer, it's completely and utterly false.

EVERY offer the NHLPA has put forth has a guaranteed raise + an assume increase in revenue for 7% per year.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

1 edit

said by Doonz:

EVERY offer the NHLPA has put forth has a guaranteed raise + an assume increase in revenue for 7% per year.

No, they've all been based on 5% revenue growth per year - half of what it was over the last 2 years.

And while they all included "raises" in $ value (keep in mind, that's the pool for players overall, not individual pay) at first, 2 of the last 3 NHLPA proposals we know the details for end up at 50/50 by the time the new CBA would expire. One of them even locked the $ value at the year 3 value until it was 50/50, which was how it would continue from then.

(The 3rd one was completely messed up, and nobody is quite sure what they were thinking with that one)

Sorry, but whoever gave you that info was spinning hard. The players have agreed to 50/50, just with a transition to it and not an instant drop of 8% with a make-even proposal that has players paying themselves back for the cut.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

EVERY offer the NHLPA has put forth has a guaranteed raise + an assume increase in revenue for 7% per year.

No, they've all been based on 5% revenue growth per year - half of what it was over the last 2 years.

And while they all included "raises" in $ value (keep in mind, that's the pool for players overall, not individual pay) at first, 2 of the last 3 NHLPA proposals we know the details for end up at 50/50 by the time the new CBA would expire. One of them even locked the $ value at the year 3 value until it was 50/50, which was how it would continue from then.

Sorry, but whoever gave you that info was spinning hard.

Your only saying 5% but you left out the 1.6% guaranteed. so sorry i was wrong i should have stats 6.4%

Anyhow if you wanna have an actual discussion on the cba spc's and all things business related just go over to hfboards.com don't forget to read the 29 threads in the business board before posting.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by Doonz:

Your only saying 5% but you left out the 1.6% guaranteed. so sorry i was wrong i should have stats 6.4%

I'm saying 5% because that's what they used.

At higher revenue growth (last two years it 10.2% and 9.6%, and it's been 7.1% on average since the last CBA) they hit 50/50 sooner and stick with it.

There was a de-linking (or partial de-linking, depending on which proposal) to get to 50/50, but they still get to 50/50 then stick with it.

Sorry, I'll stick to expert analysis and not HFboards.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

Your only saying 5% but you left out the 1.6% guaranteed. so sorry i was wrong i should have stats 6.4%

I'm saying 5% because that's what they used.

At higher revenue growth (last two years it 10.2% and 9.6%, and it's been 7.1% on average since the last CBA) they hit 50/50 sooner and stick with it.

There was a de-linking (or partial de-linking, depending on which proposal) to get to 50/50, but they still get to 50/50 then stick with it.

Sorry, I'll stick to expert analysis and not HFboards.

WOW enjoy fantasy island.

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

2 edits

said by Doonz:

WOW enjoy fantasy island.

Which part of that is fantasy?

5%? That's the number used by both the NHL and the NHLPA.

(Edit: stand corrected after further checking. The NHL uses 5%, the NHLPA used the average growth from the last CBA.)

(Further edit: I stand further corrected - the NHLPA used the average ~7.1% growth for their first proposal back in the summer. They used the same 5% as the NHL in their more recent offers, hence the confusion)

That several of the NHLPA offers move towards 50/50 over several seasons of even below-average growth and then stay there? No, that's basic math.

Experts over HFboards? Based on what you've posted, that's outright common sense. What you quoted above wasn't just spin - it was blatantly obvious spin that only a fool would believe. Even it showed the numbers going to 50/50, but claims "it's not 50/50!"

Feel free to keep buying into the BS over there though, without applying any critical thought of your own.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

WOW enjoy fantasy island.

Which part of that is fantasy?

5%? That's the number used by both the NHL and the NHLPA.

That several of the NHLPA offers move towards 50/50 over several seasons and then stay there? No, that's basic math.

Experts over HFboards? Based on what you've posted, that's outright common sense. What you quoted above wasn't just spin - it was blatantly obvious spin that only a fool would believe. Even it showed the numbers going to 50/50, but claims "it's not 50/50!"

%5 is only used by the NHLPA not the NHL the NHL has no mechanism for implementing the 5% kicker on every year where it is the NHLPA responsible for that. Also the league hasn't always had revenue growth. Please look at escrow payments.

Also the numbers i posted a few post ago by the other member used real league numbers and he showed the variance between revenue growth and the DE-LINKED PROPOSAL!!!!

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB
reply to bt

DBLE POST


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by Doonz:

Also As i posted a few post back the poster used REAL numbers based on the NHLPA proposals. If you can't figure out why the NHL wont work with them you would realize that the NHLPA is spinning things with the best of them.

Sure, real numbers. 2 of which are below even what the NHL was low-balling for growth. The two key numbers there are the 5% growth (NHL) and 7% growth (NHLPA) values. Both of those show it going to 50/50, and staying there. How is that not a deal that gets to 50/50?

His analysis above the numbers is based far to heavily on the other two sets of data that even the NHL won't use because they're that skewed.

It's also of only one of the 3 most recent NHLPA proposals.

Then there's your analysis of what he said, which takes that skew and runs with it.

"the player want to Delink" is what you took out of it, ignoring where that poster says "it switches over to a linked system where players get 50/50"

No - the disagreement isn't over 50/50. Both sides are fine with 50/50. It's a question of how to get to 50/50 from the current 57/43. The NHL wants an immediate jump to it, and the NHLPA wants a transition to it. That's the facts, no matter how people try to spin it.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

Also As i posted a few post back the poster used REAL numbers based on the NHLPA proposals. If you can't figure out why the NHL wont work with them you would realize that the NHLPA is spinning things with the best of them.

Sure, real numbers. 2 of which are below even what the NHL was low-balling for growth. The two key numbers there are the 5% growth (NHL) and 7% growth (NHLPA) values. Both of those show it going to 50/50, and staying there. How is that not a deal that gets to 50/50?

His analysis above the numbers is based far to heavily on the other two sets of data that even the NHL won't use because they're that skewed.

It's also of only one of the 3 most recent NHLPA proposals.

Then there's your analysis of what he said, which takes that skew and runs with it.

"the player want to Delink" is what you took out of it, ignoring where that poster says "it switches over to a linked system where players get 50/50"

No - the disagreement isn't over 50/50. Both sides are fine with 50/50. It's a question of how to get to 50/50 from the current 57/43. The NHL wants an immediate jump to it, and the NHLPA wants a transition to it. That's the facts, no matter how people try to spin it.

Actually what he wrote is true. The NHLPA wants a raise every year and don't care what real revenue is.

So what your saying is if this year resume after xmas your saying the league will make 5% more than it did last year?

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by Doonz:

Actually what he wrote is true. The NHLPA wants a raise every year and don't care what real revenue is.

No, it's not. 2 of the 3 offers end up locked at 50/50. It's a fact, and no amount of bad data analysis will change that.

Especially when the data shows that, and the analysis tries to disagree.

said by Doonz:

So what your saying is if this year resume after xmas your saying the league will make 5% more than it did last year?

Of course not. That's based on a full season, and beyond that it's the expected average annual growth over the term of the new CBA (5-7 years, depending on the offer). So is the amount of $$$ that would go to the players under any offer from either side (they agreed to figure out the full-season details first, then work out how to adjust for a shortened season).

As for league growth, they've had increased revenue every single year since the last lockout. The size of the increase varied from season to season, but it was always more than the previous season.

Doonz

join:2010-11-27
Beaumont, AB

said by bt:

said by Doonz:

Actually what he wrote is true. The NHLPA wants a raise every year and don't care what real revenue is.

No, it's not. 2 of the 3 offers end up locked at 50/50. It's a fact, and no amount of bad data analysis will change that.

Especially when the data shows that, and the analysis tries to disagree.

said by Doonz:

So what your saying is if this year resume after xmas your saying the league will make 5% more than it did last year?

Of course not. That's based on a full season, and beyond that it's the expected average annual growth over the term of the new CBA (5-7 years, depending on the offer). So is the amount of $$$ that would go to the players under any offer from either side (they agreed to figure out the full-season details first, then work out how to adjust for a shortened season).

As for league growth, they've had increased revenue every single year since the last lockout. The size of the increase varied from season to season, but it was always more than the previous season.

The league has not had positive growth every year as backed up by the players escrow withholding.

EDIT:

Anyhow im done on this thread. You can come join us on the buisness board of hockey on Hfboards and get proper insight into the numbers. btw the board is used by many insiders of the NHL

bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by Doonz:

The league has not had positive growth every year as backed up by the players escrow withholding.

You keep thinking that... every single reliable source has year over year growth for the league since the last lockout. I'll take that over numbers from armchair accountants, as reliable sources have actually proven reliable.


ZZZZZZZ
Premium
join:2001-05-27
PARADISE
kudos:1
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Leafs' fan flushes $5K

»www.castanet.net/edition/news-st···tm#83464

lol..........no comment.
--
~~Go Lions....back to back Cups!!~~



shaner
Premium
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

Some people have more money than brains.



FaxCap

join:2002-05-25
Surrey, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Puck Gary 2012-13 NHL Lockout

»www.torontosun.com/2012/11/19/wa···tting-up

Gotta love it.

FaxCap



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

The players are making some eloquent statements. I like the first three in the survey -- I voted for #1 as my favourite!

- Versteeg calling Bettman/Daly "cancers" 32.44% (470 votes)

- White calling Bettman an "idiot" 29.95% (434 votes)

- Krejci pointing out Bettman's salary increase 29.4% (426 votes)
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



FaxCap

join:2002-05-25
Surrey, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to ZZZZZZZ

Re: [Hockey] Official~ NHL thread...........scores and highlites

Correct me if I'm wrong here......but the league is really run by the
8(?) owners on the exec council. Buttman is their flunky figurehead
who takes the public shots.

The way I hear it some of the non-exec council owners are starting
to rattle chains. Lots of grumbling in the ranks.

FaxCap


bt

join:2009-02-26
canada
kudos:1

said by FaxCap:

Correct me if I'm wrong here......but the league is really run by the
8(?) owners on the exec council. Buttman is their flunky figurehead
who takes the public shots.

Nobody outside of the owners is really sure if it's that, or if it's that he has 8 owners willing to follow his lead.