Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Search
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
 All Forums
 Hockey Forums
Allow Anonymous Posting forum... General Hockey Chat
 2012 CBA News and Comments Allow Anonymous Users Reply to This Topic...
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 14

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 01/05/2013 :  15:25:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Your suggestion for the mediator only works in binding arbitration. All the mediator is doing is taking issues one party has with the other and making an impartial presentation with suggestions for solutions to problems. He has no authority to split the difference. This type of mediation takes the bad personality away from the presentation, a fresh perspective from an outside source and provides an impartial opinion.

quote:
Originally posted by Guest9880

This is getting silly. $60 or $65M cap for the season don't mean nothing if your revenue drops like a stone. Hello escrow at 30%. Meet in the middle at $62.5M call it a day.

Buy out, I like it that they bumped it to 2 per team. This should count as part of the players share. Get over it PA. If a player got paid, then it is the player's share. Not sure if either side is willing to go 50-50 on this, but if it is the sticking point, then it should be 50-50.

No penalty for false HRR reporting. Nice one. Umm my revenue was -$100M, so you players owe me money. What I falsely reported my revenue? Oops, it was an honest mistake. Bankruptcy. Good luck getting your money back.

Oh yeah, why the heck did it take so long to figure out the "honest mistake"?

If I was the mediator, cut every difference in half. Neither side will like it but too bad, that's what negotiations are all about. The final product neither side will like. If one side reject the solution, public shaming.

It is clear that neither side trusts the other in this negotiation. Players don't trust the owners and Bettman because Bettman and the owners lie. Owners don't trust Fehr and the cattles because Fehr doesn't play the negotaition game like they expected and well, you just can't trust cattles. Hard to have progress if they are wondering if they are being screwed over by the other guy.

Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/05/2013 :  21:08:10  Reply with Quote
Like you, I know it is not binding arbritration. Just suggesting the arbritrator slap both parties to wake them up from their dream world, split the small differences and have a season. I mean really this is super small potatoes now.

There are no more hills to die on other than the cancelation of the season.
Go to Top of Page

foolpittier
PickupHockey Pro



Canada
374 Posts

Posted - 01/06/2013 :  03:40:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well looks like the lockout is over. Now what, the 44mil Salerycap for next season should be interesting
Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/06/2013 :  08:00:14  Reply with Quote
A couple of things that are interesting to me is:

1. Will anyone watch and what would the revenue be?
2. There are provisions in the agreement that will allow the GMs to circumvent cap rules. "The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year." So what is stopping the GM from offering $10M, $6.5M, $4.3M, $2.8M, $1.8M, $1.2M, $5M for a total cap hit of $4.5M?
3. Salary arbitration of under $3.5M must be accepted by the team.

This is what they come up with after being so close in December?. This should have taken no more than a week from the December 6 session. I can't believe it took a full month to get to this agreement. The owners must be losing more money than they are letting on.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3598 Posts

Posted - 01/06/2013 :  13:39:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9880

A couple of things that are interesting to me is:

1. Will anyone watch and what would the revenue be?
2. There are provisions in the agreement that will allow the GMs to circumvent cap rules. "The salary variance on contracts from year to year cannot vary more than 35 per cent and the final year cannot vary more than 50 per cent of the highest year." So what is stopping the GM from offering $10M, $6.5M, $4.3M, $2.8M, $1.8M, $1.2M, $5M for a total cap hit of $4.5M?
3. Salary arbitration of under $3.5M must be accepted by the team.

This is what they come up with after being so close in December?. This should have taken no more than a week from the December 6 session. I can't believe it took a full month to get to this agreement. The owners must be losing more money than they are letting on.



1. I suspect people will begin to watch again, at least in Canada and big American markets. All sorts of bitching while the lockout is on, but once hockey is back it will be hard to resist long term.

2. Nothing is stopping owners from signing this sort of contract, but what is their advantage for doing so? The whole purpose of the front loaded contract was a) to get money to players up front, and b) to hopefully have them retire before the end of the deal so the cap hit disappears before the contract does. Players with a contract such as your example would certainly stay around for the last year at 5M - as opposed to Luongo/Hossa/Parise/Suter/Weber, who will almost certainly retire before theirs end. If the player stays until the end of the deal, then the advantage to the team is lost - as an owner, you may as well offer 4.5M a year for 7 years and save your up-front money. IMO the new limitations go a long way to solving the problem of front loaded contracts.

3. Yeah, I was surprised by that as well - that gives players a lot of leverage over teams when they go to arbitration.

It does seem like the owners capitulated a lot in this deal, but the big prize - a 50/50 split in overall revenue - undoubtedly went to the owners, and will have more impact on their bottom lines than any other provision in this deal.

Edited by - nuxfan on 01/06/2013 13:39:24
Go to Top of Page

Guest4350
( )

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  07:14:57  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

2. Nothing is stopping owners from signing this sort of contract, but what is their advantage for doing so? The whole purpose of the front loaded contract was a) to get money to players up front, and b) to hopefully have them retire before the end of the deal so the cap hit disappears before the contract does. Players with a contract such as your example would certainly stay around for the last year at 5M - as opposed to Luongo/Hossa/Parise/Suter/Weber, who will almost certainly retire before theirs end. If the player stays until the end of the deal, then the advantage to the team is lost - as an owner, you may as well offer 4.5M a year for 7 years and save your up-front money. IMO the new limitations go a long way to solving the problem of front loaded contracts.


Do signing bonuses count as part of the salary? Otherwise you front load the contract with signing bonuses but salary is lower. So similar to guest's post but $5M signing bonus and $5M salary. Do the same for yr 2 and 3 (no bonus in last 4 yrs and 35% of only salary), in the final year salary would only be $2.5M. This would be a significant reduction to cap hit.
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3598 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  08:58:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4350
Do signing bonuses count as part of the salary? Otherwise you front load the contract with signing bonuses but salary is lower. So similar to guest's post but $5M signing bonus and $5M salary. Do the same for yr 2 and 3 (no bonus in last 4 yrs and 35% of only salary), in the final year salary would only be $2.5M. This would be a significant reduction to cap hit.



Under the old CBA, signing bonuses count as salary, and count fully towards the cap. I don't know what the new CBA will look like in regards to bonuses, but I would be stunned if, after all this, they left that sort of loophole in - because you know they'll abuse the hell out of it. Why put in a clause specific to year to year variances, and then allow yourself to circumvent it via signing bonuses?
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  13:51:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I think the new CBA either limits or removes signing bonuses. That was in the last Owner proposal and heard no objection by the union to that point. Either way the opening contract has set limits which would include the signing bonus as year one income and there can be no deviation yearly greater than 35% from year to year. The years overall cannot be greater than 50% difference from year one to end year contract value on any particular year. Looks like back diving contracts are a thing of the past. Of course year 1 could be as much as twice as greater than the final year. If I was a GM I would have the lowest year during the final season to put myself in a position to buyout should player value drop in the final years.
Go to Top of Page

Beans15
Moderator



Canada
8190 Posts

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  17:03:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Does anyone know if the NHL was able to get their suggestion into the agreement regarding retired players under contract?? At one point the NHL wanted the cap hit to go to the team who signed a player to one of these back diving deals in the case the player retired. Even if that player was traded, the cap hit would go back to the original team who signed the player.

Does anyone know if that made the CBA??



One final point: Not unlike the last CBA, I don't think anyone can call a winner or a loser at this point. After the 2005 CBA almost everyone talked about everything the players gave up only for the vast majority of them to get significantly richer than they would have before. Who knows if this deal is a owners win or a players win.

But one things is for certain: Agents and GMs WILL find a way through loopholes in this agreement. It happens with every agreement and always will.

Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!

Edited by - Beans15 on 01/07/2013 17:05:58
Go to Top of Page

Guest4377
( )

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  20:29:24  Reply with Quote
Of course, agents and GMs will "find a way through loopholes," and that being the case, my money is on the agents.

The agents will always look to maximize their client's value, and GMs will overspend each other (albeit, in the relative confines of the new CBA) to overspend each other to get the best talent. That, in essence, is what the lockout was all about - for the owners to constuct an agreement to protect them from themselves.

To an extent, they have (with the new caps, etc.), but essentially you have two forces who drive up players' salaries - players (through their agents) and GMs (and owners) who can't help themselves.

But there's another important factor (force) here: the fans and/or hockey-related revenues. If the fans come back the same as before (as they did after the 2004-2005 lock-out season), the players and owners will derive the benefits accordingly, and for this, we (the fans) can only blame ourselves.

In essence, the fans (through hockey-related revenues) determine how much the players will earn (50% of HRR) and how much the owners rake in (their 50% of HRR, of course after expenses), so it remains to be seen if the lock-out will impact the owners and players in a negative (or positive) fashion.

After the 2004-2005 lock-out, revenues went up (and up and up), so the players definitely made more. But the jury is out on whether the owners made more money. (Hence the lock-out.) Let's see what happens this time, especially if league revenues stay the same, or if fan support (and TV, sponsor support, etc.) decreases. Alternatively, if HRR go up, the players will make more, but will the teams?


Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  20:32:20  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15

Does anyone know if the NHL was able to get their suggestion into the agreement regarding retired players under contract?? At one point the NHL wanted the cap hit to go to the team who signed a player to one of these back diving deals in the case the player retired. Even if that player was traded, the cap hit would go back to the original team who signed the player.

Does anyone know if that made the CBA??

One final point: Not unlike the last CBA, I don't think anyone can call a winner or a loser at this point. After the 2005 CBA almost everyone talked about everything the players gave up only for the vast majority of them to get significantly richer than they would have before. Who knows if this deal is a owners win or a players win.

But one things is for certain: Agents and GMs WILL find a way through loopholes in this agreement. It happens with every agreement and always will.

Don't remember seeing that in the summary. That's a big change from the last so it should have been mentioned.

Agents will ask for the moon for the players. GMs don't have to pay it. They don't. With the exception of the salary arbitration under $3.5M, they can just walk away, but as always they won't. That is the owner's and GM's problem they won't walk away from an agent's demand of the moon.

As Josh mentioned, Players salary will be way over the HRR percentage for this and the next couple of years. If for some reason revenue goes back to the $3.3B, average salary cap is of $55M, which means upper and lower limits of about $48M to $62M. So hello escrow.
Go to Top of Page

Guest9880
( )

Posted - 01/07/2013 :  20:41:19  Reply with Quote
Well I'm wrong. It appears the penalty is on for trading a player with a contract longer than 6 yrs. But the math is a little bit more complicated.

Fans have a say in the player's and owners income. Don't watch and neither the owners or players make money. How about that? Unfortunately fans are chumps like the owners and GMs, we'll pay whatever the price.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 01/09/2013 :  19:36:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4377

Of course, agents and GMs will "find a way through loopholes," and that being the case, my money is on the agents.

The agents will always look to maximize their client's value, and GMs will overspend each other (albeit, in the relative confines of the new CBA) to overspend each other to get the best talent. That, in essence, is what the lockout was all about - for the owners to constuct an agreement to protect them from themselves.

To an extent, they have (with the new caps, etc.), but essentially you have two forces who drive up players' salaries - players (through their agents) and GMs (and owners) who can't help themselves.

But there's another important factor (force) here: the fans and/or hockey-related revenues. If the fans come back the same as before (as they did after the 2004-2005 lock-out season), the players and owners will derive the benefits accordingly, and for this, we (the fans) can only blame ourselves.

In essence, the fans (through hockey-related revenues) determine how much the players will earn (50% of HRR) and how much the owners rake in (their 50% of HRR, of course after expenses), so it remains to be seen if the lock-out will impact the owners and players in a negative (or positive) fashion.

After the 2004-2005 lock-out, revenues went up (and up and up), so the players definitely made more. But the jury is out on whether the owners made more money. (Hence the lock-out.) Let's see what happens this time, especially if league revenues stay the same, or if fan support (and TV, sponsor support, etc.) decreases. Alternatively, if HRR go up, the players will make more, but will the teams?






Revenue's went up but expenses went up beyond the owners control. Most owners got expensive new stadiums or upgrades, signed new lease for Arena, expensive scoreboards and have increased player travel, equipment expenses. The player revenue went down accordingly from the 73% area to 57% and the owners thought that would be enough to compensate for the added expenses. Now that player expenses have gone down again dont expect all to right the books over night.
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 03/16/2013 :  13:06:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/07/carolina-panthers-made-profit/?sct=obnetwork
Go to Top of Page

nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star



3598 Posts

Posted - 03/16/2013 :  14:37:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/07/carolina-panthers-made-profit/?sct=obnetwork



this is about an NFL team, what does that have to do with the NHL? Or are you implying that a single owner in another sport lied about his earnings, therefore every owner in every sport must be lying about theirs?
Go to Top of Page

JOSHUACANADA
PickupHockey Veteran



Canada
1910 Posts

Posted - 03/16/2013 :  16:53:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
To be brutally honest, when I read the headline and the article initially I was on a hockey site and I misread that this was not an NHL team, as it referenced the Panthers and Carolina. Hey St Patty's Day is tomorrow and I am looking forward to some green beer. This was probably a predrunk something something. I am sure to make a few more mistakes tomorrow

quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan

quote:
Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

I had to post this link with regards to a small market team claiming poverty while receiving decent revenue. I maintained the owners revenues as disclosed were cooked books to show loss when profits were obtainable. here is the first example I could find post lockout. Hate to say it but the owners got what they wanted and the players were justified to suspect they were not receiving 100% truth from the owners.

http://tracking.si.com/2013/03/07/carolina-panthers-made-profit/?sct=obnetwork



this is about an NFL team, what does that have to do with the NHL? Or are you implying that a single owner in another sport lied about his earnings, therefore every owner in every sport must be lying about theirs?

Go to Top of Page

Alex116
PickupHockey Legend



5810 Posts

Posted - 03/16/2013 :  17:06:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Lol Joshua....enjoy the green beers! I will check in tomorrow to read about why you think the NHL should move to 4 quarters and adopt penalties for excessive goal celebrations!
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 14 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
Jump To:
Snitz Forums 2000 Go To Top Of Page