NHL CBA Talk

Hoags wrote:Don't think this will be resolved anytime soon:
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/09/21/the-nhl-lockout-believe-it-or-not-on-the-players-side-it-probably-isnt-all-about-the-money/

When Gary Bettman argues that the players will be better off financially if they just start making concessions now and avoid missing any games, he isn’t wrong. Players have short careers. Losing even half a season represents a bigger drop in total career earnings than the concessions they’d make to the league. From a financial perspective, it strikes me as all but inarguable that the players’ best bet is to settle quickly.

But then, that’s not really the point. I think when the players, for the most part, look at how things have been handled they’re struck by the unfairness of the league’s position. Gary Bettman has been trumpeting the league’s record revenues ever since the last lockout. Now he’s demanding massive concessions. Owners have signed players to long-term deals – as recently as the day the collective bargaining agreement expired. Now they’re hoping to claw some of that money back, in their first offer through a rollback and in later offers through escrow. The league couldn’t exist without the players – what right to guys in suits have to demand concessions every time the CBA expires?

There's reference to a study which shows that most people would rather walk away from a bad deal where they get an unfair split rather than take whatever is offered(something is better than nothing).

Walsh is an agent, when the players get more money so does he, so he is utterly biased on this dispute.

shabbs wrote:
What's happening is the NHL numbers are not using the 7.1%, but the NHLPA numbers are, thus creating a seemingly bigger divide. The NHL is saying the NHLPA is making assumptions that are not right and banking on money that may not be there, which is a fair statement. No one can predict the future, and certainly no one predicted the 7.1% growth they've seen since the last lockout. Can it continue? Who knows.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He's able to spend, just not willing. Besides, if he keeps calling us "knowledgeable fans" we won't mind a sub-par product on the ice. Cheap bastard. Kind of like Bettman counting on "the best Fans in the world" to put up with these CBA antics.

wprager wrote:
The study that is referenced is completely flawed because we are not talking about a Joe-Blow off the street. We are talking about a "bad" deal where the smallest salary you could get ($485K last time I checked) is likely 10x or more higher than their next best alternative, and where the average salary is 50x higher.

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He's able to spend, just not willing. Besides, if he keeps calling us "knowledgeable fans" we won't mind a sub-par product on the ice. Cheap bastard. Kind of like Bettman counting on "the best Fans in the world" to put up with these CBA antics.

I don't mind, you look around the league how many teams are saddled with bad long-term contracts, the closest we have is Gonchar for one more year and he was very serviceable last year.
Spending for the sake of spending is worse and I don't think we have a sub-par product at all.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He's able to spend, just not willing. Besides, if he keeps calling us "knowledgeable fans" we won't mind a sub-par product on the ice. Cheap bastard. Kind of like Bettman counting on "the best Fans in the world" to put up with these CBA antics.

I don't mind, you look around the league how many teams are saddled with bad long-term contracts, the closest we have is Gonchar for one more year and he was very serviceable last year.
Spending for the sake of spending is worse and I don't think we have a sub-par product at all.

Not suggesting that at all. Spending for the sake of making the team better would be nice.

SeawaySensFan wrote:
Not suggesting that at all. Spending for the sake of making the team better would be nice.

NEELY wrote:
I think smart signings we the thing this summer.

NEELY wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Hoags wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:
He's able to spend, just not willing. Besides, if he keeps calling us "knowledgeable fans" we won't mind a sub-par product on the ice. Cheap bastard. Kind of like Bettman counting on "the best Fans in the world" to put up with these CBA antics.

I don't mind, you look around the league how many teams are saddled with bad long-term contracts, the closest we have is Gonchar for one more year and he was very serviceable last year.
Spending for the sake of spending is worse and I don't think we have a sub-par product at all.

Not suggesting that at all. Spending for the sake of making the team better would be nice.

A lot better crop of UFA's this year and a ton of cap space and money other teams just don't have. If they go through next off season without dropping a dime on a good UFA (not what ever's left) then perhaps you have an argument. Right now though, I don't see the point in spending money on players that are not better than a lot of the guys they have now.

I think smart signings we the thing this summer.

SpezDispenser wrote:At this point, I'd think about making the concession that there will be no rollbacks in actual dollars. I think it's pretty silly to insist on the contracts being rolled back. You (the owners) signed these contracts, now honour them, it's no one's problem but your own.

However...a hard cap of 64 million is what I'd vote for and a revenue split of 47% on average for this concession - and I want the CBA to be a decade long so we don't have to do this again in six years.

That's my offer.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:At this point, I'd think about making the concession that there will be no rollbacks in actual dollars. I think it's pretty silly to insist on the contracts being rolled back. You (the owners) signed these contracts, now honour them, it's no one's problem but your own.

However...a hard cap of 64 million is what I'd vote for and a revenue split of 47% on average for this concession - and I want the CBA to be a decade long so we don't have to do this again in six years.

That's my offer.

Send it to the NHLFA and they will present it to the league. The FANS will resolve this!!!

SpezDispenser wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:At this point, I'd think about making the concession that there will be no rollbacks in actual dollars. I think it's pretty silly to insist on the contracts being rolled back. You (the owners) signed these contracts, now honour them, it's no one's problem but your own.

However...a hard cap of 64 million is what I'd vote for and a revenue split of 47% on average for this concession - and I want the CBA to be a decade long so we don't have to do this again in six years.

That's my offer.

Send it to the NHLFA and they will present it to the league. The FANS will resolve this!!!

Diddle yeah, I'll do it.

Hoags wrote:
Is it really that flawed in this case ? You are being asked to settle for less, you know the other party is getting more than you, that's hard to accept even if taking what you are given is more than enough for you.

There's also the feeling that you gave up a lot years ago, you're being asked to give up now and you'll be asked to give years later. When is it going to stop ?

If you were working a job where all you got was wage cutbacks/freezes and loss of benefits you'd probably quit after a while, it's demoralizing especially when your employer brags about how much money they're rolling in.

wprager wrote:Look, I'm not saying that Fehr is the only one guilty of spin, but:

$3.3B * 1.071 = $3.5343B. According to the NHLPA the revenues will continue to grow at 7.1% -- that is the basis of their proposal.

57% of $3.3B = $1.881B.

NHL is offering 49% of revenues in year one, so 49% of $3.5343B = $1.731807B, which is a rollback of 7.9% (1 - [1.731807 / 1.881] = 0.07931).

So this is what Fehr calls "much lower salaries"? Also, this is not mentioned in the linked article, but it is in Macramalla's tweet, and attributed to Fehr's memo:

#Fehr: NHL proposed lowering salaries to 49%, 48% in year 2 and 47% for last 4 seasons; reduction equals 14% (yr1), 16% (yr2) and 17.5%

Basically he is ignoring the expected 7.1% increase when it suits him, coming up with a 14% reduction in year 1, instead of the much rosier 7.1%.

sandysensfan wrote:

wprager wrote:Look, I'm not saying that Fehr is the only one guilty of spin, but:

$3.3B * 1.071 = $3.5343B. According to the NHLPA the revenues will continue to grow at 7.1% -- that is the basis of their proposal.

57% of $3.3B = $1.881B.

NHL is offering 49% of revenues in year one, so 49% of $3.5343B = $1.731807B, which is a rollback of 7.9% (1 - [1.731807 / 1.881] = 0.07931).

So this is what Fehr calls "much lower salaries"? Also, this is not mentioned in the linked article, but it is in Macramalla's tweet, and attributed to Fehr's memo:

#Fehr: NHL proposed lowering salaries to 49%, 48% in year 2 and 47% for last 4 seasons; reduction equals 14% (yr1), 16% (yr2) and 17.5%

Basically he is ignoring the expected 7.1% increase when it suits him, coming up with a 14% reduction in year 1, instead of the much rosier 7.1%.

I'm not an accountant or very good on math.. but the NHL apparently in their last offer agreed to leave the 'what is HRR' the same as this past season..

Then how did 49%, 48% & 47% down from what the NHLPA is getting now as 57% become less by 14%, 16% or 17.5%... why wouldn't it be 8%, 9%, 10%? Is it some magical formula or is Fehr trying to make it worse than it really is to get fan support on the side of the players.. making the Owners the bad guys.

wprager wrote:
It's not the same because the difference between, say, getting $57K annual salary and $49K is a significant percentage of the basic amount you need to live comfortably. The difference between $2.4M and $2.06M is kind of moot because the amount you need to live comfortably is covered 10-fold already.

shabbs wrote:That's why you hear The Fehr say "47% is more like 43%" as he's comparing it to how much it would be under current HRR rules vs the proposed HRR rules. Which is a fair statement as it gives a better comparison.