2012 CBA Negotiations Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
- Status
bustaheims
Active member
Nik? said:
Except, they're not actually giving anything back. The current player's share has to fall in the 54-57% range. Their proposal puts it at 54.4% for the coming season and an unknown but comparable percentage in the next 2 seasons. It doesn't call for any salary rollbacks. It also includes a clause where, if league revenues increase by more than 10%, then the 57% figure can come back into play - and, with league revenues having increased an average of 9.6% the past couple seasons, a new US TV contract this season, a new Canadian TV contract coming for the 3rd year of the deal and a larger scale Winter Classic this season, involving the largest fan base in the league, that 10 % number is well within reach. As concessions go, this one rings awfully hollow.
bustaheims
Active member
Nik? said:
Well, firstly, I wouldn't call a slightly larger percentage increase than what they've seen in recent years exceptional. In fact, considering the circumstances, I'd call it a likelihood. As for the rest, it's at most 3 seasons where their earning potential is slightly lower than it is under the current deal. That's not significant. It's lipstick on a pig.
Kin
New member
bustaheims said:
But that speaks to the need for a lockout in the first place. If a business is experiencing that kind of revenue growth and failing to turn an acceptable profit the problem is largely internal. Do you think if you'd spoken to the owners in 04-05, whe/n they wrote the CBA as they saw fit, and told them they'd experience that kind of revenue growth they'd have told you it was an unworkable financial model?
bustaheims said:
But, as referenced above, that's less a result of what the players are getting and more a result of the way revenues are distributed throughout the league. The league wrote the current CBA with essentially no meaningful opposition. The idea that the players should redress its deficiencies is like robbing a liquor store and hoping the clerk will pay the robber's hospital bills.
hockeyfan1
New member
From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/08/15/grange_nhl_nhlpa_cba_talks_fehr_proposal/
What the players are asking for in exchange for a hard cap and a short-term pay cut is that the owners share some of their new-found wealth with the league?s weakerthans and in a more robust, less restrictive way than they do now. The New York Islanders, for example, can?t participate in revenue sharing because they?re in a television market with more than 2.5 million homes.
The league?s revenue-sharing program currently calls for about $200 million (six per cent of HRR) to trickle down from the top 10 earning clubs to those that qualify. The NHLPA is proposing that number jump to about $250 million and be shared among more teams.
...the owners? plan would give the players 43.3 per cent of HRR, rolling salaries back by 24 per cent immediately. The players? proposal would get the players about 54.4 per cent of HRR and allow them to keep every cent that?s in their current contracts.
...Crosby....the players? plan... ? it means the contract he signed this summer will be worth $104.4 million, not the discounted version worth $76.6 million the owners would like to pay him under their proposal.
...the owners benefit in the players? deal is theoretical, based on revenues that are expected to grow but might not. The owners? plan means real cash savings beginning right away.
The real genius in the NHLPA proposal is that it is a slick effort to get the players out of the ever-shrinking box that seems to be the fate of athletes who enter shared revenue/salary cap arrangements with owners.
With the cap system in place, the owners begin each CBA negotiation by offering the players a smaller share of the revenue pie. All the players can hope for is that they can keep what they have, knowing all along that the moment the owners lock them out, they?re losing money they won?t get back.
By having the deal the players are proposing reset, whereby in the fourth year of it the CBA "snaps back" to what they have in place now -- a 57 per cent share of HRR -- that number becomes the starting point for negotiations four years from now, which is far better than the 43.3 per cent they?d be trying to protect next time around if the owners get their way.
It?s a clever mechanism to maintain the status quo, and Fehr should be congratulated for thinking outside that ever-shrinking box.
Unfortunately, the owners want that box to keep shrinking and they want to cut their No. 1 expense: player salaries.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2012/08/15/grange_nhl_nhlpa_cba_talks_fehr_proposal/
What the players are asking for in exchange for a hard cap and a short-term pay cut is that the owners share some of their new-found wealth with the league?s weakerthans and in a more robust, less restrictive way than they do now. The New York Islanders, for example, can?t participate in revenue sharing because they?re in a television market with more than 2.5 million homes.
The league?s revenue-sharing program currently calls for about $200 million (six per cent of HRR) to trickle down from the top 10 earning clubs to those that qualify. The NHLPA is proposing that number jump to about $250 million and be shared among more teams.
...the owners? plan would give the players 43.3 per cent of HRR, rolling salaries back by 24 per cent immediately. The players? proposal would get the players about 54.4 per cent of HRR and allow them to keep every cent that?s in their current contracts.
...Crosby....the players? plan... ? it means the contract he signed this summer will be worth $104.4 million, not the discounted version worth $76.6 million the owners would like to pay him under their proposal.
...the owners benefit in the players? deal is theoretical, based on revenues that are expected to grow but might not. The owners? plan means real cash savings beginning right away.
The real genius in the NHLPA proposal is that it is a slick effort to get the players out of the ever-shrinking box that seems to be the fate of athletes who enter shared revenue/salary cap arrangements with owners.
With the cap system in place, the owners begin each CBA negotiation by offering the players a smaller share of the revenue pie. All the players can hope for is that they can keep what they have, knowing all along that the moment the owners lock them out, they?re losing money they won?t get back.
By having the deal the players are proposing reset, whereby in the fourth year of it the CBA "snaps back" to what they have in place now -- a 57 per cent share of HRR -- that number becomes the starting point for negotiations four years from now, which is far better than the 43.3 per cent they?d be trying to protect next time around if the owners get their way.
It?s a clever mechanism to maintain the status quo, and Fehr should be congratulated for thinking outside that ever-shrinking box.
Unfortunately, the owners want that box to keep shrinking and they want to cut their No. 1 expense: player salaries.
hockeyfan1
New member
Sgt said:
$1.74B to be exact. (see Sportsnet article/link I posted).
hockeyfan1
New member
Interesting...Five ways to remedy the CBA stalemate...
From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/magazine/2012/08/16/fixing_nhl_crisis_in_five_easy_steps/#.UC4LQCBaKoM.mailto
....Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which -- on-ice performance aside -- is perhaps the most sophisticated sports ownership group on the planet. According to Forbes, the Leafs' 2010?11 operating income of $81.8 million nearly matched the next two most lucrative operations -- the Rangers and Canadiens -- combined. (And if you're looking for a staggering figure, the other 27 teams combined for $44.4 million in operating losses.)
and....
...the 10 highest-earning teams dispensing approximately six percent of league revenues -- about $192 million -- to the bottom 15 franchises, provided those clubs meet certain preconditions...
the contribution of any given team is capped at about $10 million, based on regular-season revenues (it's adjusted for the playoffs), meaning the Montreal Canadiens, for example, shared just six percent of their revenues with the league's bottom feeders...
...(the NBA's new CBA is fully implemented, teams like the Los Angeles Lakers will be writing cheques of $50 million or more to the league.)
In 2003?04, the NHL's 10 highest-spending teams paid out $634 million in salaries. Adjusted for inflation, that would have been about $791 million last season. Given that league revenues have exploded since the lockout -- by about $1 billion -- does it not seem reasonable that the 10 highest-spending teams would foot a cumulative wage bill of $1 billion?
set aside 10 percent of revenues for the Stanley Cup tournament, we're left with about $2.71 billion to splash around, or about $1.35 billion to spend on salaries (based onEvery dollar spent over that amount is taxed at a rate of 100 percent. If the top 10 teams spent to their inflation-adjusted, pre-lockout levels, it'd generate a tax bill of $307 million to share among the 10 lowest-revenue clubs our 50-50 split of revenues). Divide that by 28 teams and we get an average salary figure of $48.4 million.
Would that luxury tax system guarantee profitability? Yes. If you extrapolate from the $26 million in operating costs the league trotted out in the Levitt Report to justify the 2003?04 lockout, the rule of thumb for an NHL team today (arena costs, minor league operations, executive salaries) is $32.4 million.
With the current actual salary floor of $54 million (for 2012?13), that puts the break-even point for most teams in the $86-million range. Since we've lopped off or relocated the lowest-revenue teams in the league, all the remaining teams would have a chance to be profitable under the above set of circumstances as they all have revenues of $80 million or so. A luxury-tax cheque would put some money in their pockets, and a couple of playoff appearance cheques would flow straight to the bottom line.
At the other end of the table? Fans in Vancouver or Chicago or New York or Montreal could spend top dollar on tickets with the expectation that ownership could invest in teams to win, something that's missing now. Major League Baseball has thrived in an era where iconic franchises have been empowered to behave accordingly; the NHL can learn from that. The Habs and the Leafs should be hockey's version of the Red Sox and the Yankees, shouldn't they?
From:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/magazine/2012/08/16/fixing_nhl_crisis_in_five_easy_steps/#.UC4LQCBaKoM.mailto
....Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, which -- on-ice performance aside -- is perhaps the most sophisticated sports ownership group on the planet. According to Forbes, the Leafs' 2010?11 operating income of $81.8 million nearly matched the next two most lucrative operations -- the Rangers and Canadiens -- combined. (And if you're looking for a staggering figure, the other 27 teams combined for $44.4 million in operating losses.)
and....
...the 10 highest-earning teams dispensing approximately six percent of league revenues -- about $192 million -- to the bottom 15 franchises, provided those clubs meet certain preconditions...
the contribution of any given team is capped at about $10 million, based on regular-season revenues (it's adjusted for the playoffs), meaning the Montreal Canadiens, for example, shared just six percent of their revenues with the league's bottom feeders...
...(the NBA's new CBA is fully implemented, teams like the Los Angeles Lakers will be writing cheques of $50 million or more to the league.)
In 2003?04, the NHL's 10 highest-spending teams paid out $634 million in salaries. Adjusted for inflation, that would have been about $791 million last season. Given that league revenues have exploded since the lockout -- by about $1 billion -- does it not seem reasonable that the 10 highest-spending teams would foot a cumulative wage bill of $1 billion?
set aside 10 percent of revenues for the Stanley Cup tournament, we're left with about $2.71 billion to splash around, or about $1.35 billion to spend on salaries (based onEvery dollar spent over that amount is taxed at a rate of 100 percent. If the top 10 teams spent to their inflation-adjusted, pre-lockout levels, it'd generate a tax bill of $307 million to share among the 10 lowest-revenue clubs our 50-50 split of revenues). Divide that by 28 teams and we get an average salary figure of $48.4 million.
Would that luxury tax system guarantee profitability? Yes. If you extrapolate from the $26 million in operating costs the league trotted out in the Levitt Report to justify the 2003?04 lockout, the rule of thumb for an NHL team today (arena costs, minor league operations, executive salaries) is $32.4 million.
With the current actual salary floor of $54 million (for 2012?13), that puts the break-even point for most teams in the $86-million range. Since we've lopped off or relocated the lowest-revenue teams in the league, all the remaining teams would have a chance to be profitable under the above set of circumstances as they all have revenues of $80 million or so. A luxury-tax cheque would put some money in their pockets, and a couple of playoff appearance cheques would flow straight to the bottom line.
At the other end of the table? Fans in Vancouver or Chicago or New York or Montreal could spend top dollar on tickets with the expectation that ownership could invest in teams to win, something that's missing now. Major League Baseball has thrived in an era where iconic franchises have been empowered to behave accordingly; the NHL can learn from that. The Habs and the Leafs should be hockey's version of the Red Sox and the Yankees, shouldn't they?
The way I see it the NHL is going to win this battle.There are enough teams losing money or just breaking even that they are willing to wait this out.The longer the PA stalls the less leverage they will have.
Bettman is going to methodically break down Fehr as he did Goodenow.Time is on his side.The NHLPA is going to do well if they get 50% of the revenues..IF..they sign a deal by the Sept 15th lockout date..if the season is delayed I doubt they get that much..if the season is cancelled,it will be back to 43%,take it or leave it.
Business is cruel at times as I have personally experienced.
Bettman is going to methodically break down Fehr as he did Goodenow.Time is on his side.The NHLPA is going to do well if they get 50% of the revenues..IF..they sign a deal by the Sept 15th lockout date..if the season is delayed I doubt they get that much..if the season is cancelled,it will be back to 43%,take it or leave it.
Business is cruel at times as I have personally experienced.
crazyperfectdevil
New member
if the players roll over now..they'll be doing it again in 5 years ..so there's more on the line then just right now..
probably just an idle threat because this all pisses me off ..but if we lose a season i'm not sure i bother to come back...this play for five years take a year off thing is a slap in the face
probably just an idle threat because this all pisses me off ..but if we lose a season i'm not sure i bother to come back...this play for five years take a year off thing is a slap in the face
Hampreacher
New member
if the problem is the small market teams maybe they need to contract. Drop Phoenix then combine the teams from colombus and Nashville and or Florida and Tampa Bay. to have 27 or 28 teams. Have a dispersal draft for the players.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Since I now have tickets to the Winter Classic, they need to get a deal done. I may have to pull a Hawkeye and go to the negotiations and plea for a deal.
Kin
New member
So here's something I was thinking about that I'm not sure has a concrete answer. I was talking about basketball's CBA recently and the idea that one of the fundamental problems with Basketballs CBA is that it doesn't really allow for the really great players to be paid what they're worth and it's created this very weird bunching at the top where a "star" with a max deal will be making similar money regardless of if they're a game-defining, once in a generation sort of guy like Lebron or a pretty good player like Joe Johnson or Amare Stoudemire. To some extent this is true in Hockey where it generally seems as though the contract of every good player is going to wind up with a AAV falling somewhere between 6.5 and 8.5 million.
Anyways, the question is this, suppose the NHL had a CBA similar to Baseball's and Sid Crosby or Evgeni Malkin hit free agency at 26 or 27. How much would they be worth as UFA's? Not what they'd get necessarily but how much could the Rangers or Leafs or Habs pay a player like that and still have it be a good business decision? 15 million per? 20?
Anyways, the question is this, suppose the NHL had a CBA similar to Baseball's and Sid Crosby or Evgeni Malkin hit free agency at 26 or 27. How much would they be worth as UFA's? Not what they'd get necessarily but how much could the Rangers or Leafs or Habs pay a player like that and still have it be a good business decision? 15 million per? 20?
Frank E
Active member
Nik? said:
That's kind of why I like the baseball tax rather than a cap.
And really, not just because I'm a Leaf fan.
It's more to do with allowing the individual franchises to pay for labour as their revenue streams allow, and tax proceeds go to provide stability in smaller markets. Make the tax hefty enough, and let the market take care of the rest.
I'm really having trouble with why the NHL is insisting on sticking with the cap ceiling and floor model. It really hasn't worked out that well for them. I think the owners like the idea of a cap partly because it controls the rate of inflation somewhat. But what we've actually seen is that instead of big yearly salaries getting out of control, it's the term that's out of control.
I think if the league is going to maintain the current floor/ceiling model, they are going to fight hard for caping the term of contracts.
Frank E
Active member
When Bettman and his allies insist that the league has financial difficulties, what he really means is that a handful of teams bleed money like stuck pigs. Two teams, Phoenix and Columbus, account for almost a third of league losses all on their own. Then there is the evidence of the past summer that suggests even owners from some of the small, low-revenue markets are a hell of a long way from the poor house. Carolina, which lost money last year, signed Jordan Staal to a US$60-million contract extension and gave Alexander Semin a one-year, US$6.7-million deal. Nashville, which lost money, matched Philadelphia?s 14-year, US$110-million bid for Shea Weber. Minnesota, which lost money, gave Ryan Suter and Zach Parise a combinedUS $196-million. These are not the moves of business entities that are teetering on the edge of financial ruin.
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/08/18/nhls-tactics-in-labour-talks-meant-to-hurt-players/
The problem I have with this argument is two-fold.
Firstly, according to the current CBA, these money losing teams still have to hit the salary floor, sell tickets, and try to improve their individual profitability. So the fact that they're investing in marquis players is key to their profitability, both short and long term. So this part of the article, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous.
Secondly, the league isn't talking about trying to break even. If 18 out of 30 are losing money, that's a definite structural problem. The league is looking for proper profitability for teams, given the risks and investment required in running an NHL franchise. The revenue talk has to be balanced with the expense. There will always be big market teams that have been successful at running a business, and balance their costs with exceptional revenues in order to net out a good profit. It's about ensuring that most teams can be properly profitable without having to have exceptional revenue.
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/08/18/nhls-tactics-in-labour-talks-meant-to-hurt-players/
The problem I have with this argument is two-fold.
Firstly, according to the current CBA, these money losing teams still have to hit the salary floor, sell tickets, and try to improve their individual profitability. So the fact that they're investing in marquis players is key to their profitability, both short and long term. So this part of the article, in my opinion, is a little ridiculous.
Secondly, the league isn't talking about trying to break even. If 18 out of 30 are losing money, that's a definite structural problem. The league is looking for proper profitability for teams, given the risks and investment required in running an NHL franchise. The revenue talk has to be balanced with the expense. There will always be big market teams that have been successful at running a business, and balance their costs with exceptional revenues in order to net out a good profit. It's about ensuring that most teams can be properly profitable without having to have exceptional revenue.
Hampreacher
New member
Bettman and yhe owners need to realize that the league cannot survive any lockout. It has not hardly recovered in US market from 04. The economic climate is much worse. The canadian teams might survie but US teams all would be hurt and never recover. If Bettman does not understand that and all appearances are that he does not, he must be replaced. 2nd the league needs to contract by dropping and or combining 4 or 5 teams. Why try to prop them up a lockout would kill them anyways so why drag the whole league down with them.
Kin
New member
Frank E said:
Well, in a way, that's what I was getting at. It seems that the system as is primarily financially benefits your sort of mid-tier free agents and the big market teams that have their expenses capped.
But really I was just wondering what people thought the really exceptional FA's would actually be worth.
Kin
New member
Frank E said:
Well, leaving aside the issue of Jordan Staal as a marquis player, I think the bigger problem there is that the teams you're talking about already have "marquis" players that they're investing in. Carolina, absent Jordan Staal, are paying Eric Staal and Alex Semin and Cam Ward marquis prices. Minnesota, without their two giant UFA contracts, also has three players earning more than 6 million per year annually(The Maple Leafs, by comparison, have one such player).
So I think it's a false premise to say that either team needed to sign these contracts to establish an ability to invest in high priced players. Minnesota in particular is a team that is now at the very upper reaches of the cap, spending more money than the Cup winning Kings did.
The track record of signing big FA deals as a means to improve your team and reap the profitability that goes with it is not a sure thing. It's a short cut. To a lot of people these deals strike people as money losers. That's the criticism. They're entering into deals that aren't beneficial to them financially in the long and short term. That they're putting winning in the short term ahead of profitability and then crying about how they're not profitable.
That's the issue a lot of people have with the league. That it only seems as though some owners care about the dollars and cents of it when it comes time to negotiate with the PA.
Frank E said:
I think this is where most teachers would ask you to show your work. Are these teams being run specifically to show a profit? Are they spending a proper amount of money on non-player related expenses? Are they being run particularly well?
To simply hold up the NHL's numbers and say that something is structurally wrong with the way players are compensated strikes me as giving them a license to run their businesses as poorly as they want because any losses can then be attributed to a structural problem with the CBA as opposed to any of their own decisions.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Interesting new trend of referring to players as noblemen, though.
- Status