1718 replies to this topic

[maxpower]

I don't think it is this high, but the problem is that the players' share is salary and benefits - we're not privy to the benefits numbers. Neil Greenberg tweeted that there's 53.4% of HRR committed to players now. There's a few notable unsigned players but not that many. So they could go to 55% this year, unless benefits comprise that much more.



I don't think it's very hard. The trouble would be with coming up where the cap number would fall - that could be agreed to beforehand, like the luxury tax in MLB. So say they put the cap at $65M in year 1, $66M in year 2, then in year three it's 50% of 2013-14 revenues.



I mean - really? That's what the whole damn problem with this lockout has been. I recognize that escrow does not mean that players' contracts are fully guaranteed, but for the most part players have made what their salary says. Players are upset that they signed big deals which the owners are going to take money from, in addition to continuing the escrow system which jeopardizes that money too. The players recognize 57% isn't happening. So, again, I think guaranteeing deals and moving to 50/50 (or even 49/51) could be where a deal lies. I would still like to see, if a CBA can't be agreed to by say, September 15, 2019, the 2019-2020 season cap is set at 57% of revenues. This gives the players some lockout protection and incentivizes both sides to cut a deal before then.

They accepted linkage and should understand how it works by now. Yes, 12% off the top is too much. They need to find a way to get to a happy medium. If they want to fight linkage altogether, that's another thing and they are entitled to that. Just as the league is entitled to change the linkage %.

And if they don't understand why they may not get the same on their deals as they did under 57% linkage.... they don't understand how linkage works.
Just find a way to do it that doesn't penalize them too heavily on the way down. 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 49 would be 51% exactly to the players over the lifetime. Seems pretty easy. The initial haircut would be insignificant and hopefully revenue would keep future ones away. Instead we have 12% haircuts and bizarre financial systems thought up out of thin air.

[MadDog2020]

http://prohockeytalk...-craig-leipold/ Minnesota’s Zach Parise has been pretty vocal when it comes to calling out the owners as the lockout rages on. He’s sounded off before, but after seeing the NHL reject the players’ union’s three proposals this afternoon, he’s got his dander up again.

Parise tells Michael Russo of The Star-Tribune he’s upset about how the owners conducted business this summer with a lockout on the horizon they knew they’d put into effect and Wild owner Craig Leipold sort of gets called out.

“You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, ‘We don’t want to pay these contracts,’” Parise said. “Maybe that’s how they conduct business. That just doesn’t seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, ‘You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?’”

Russo asked Parise if he was, indeed, calling out Leipold and he wisely said he wasn’t “pointing fingers” at anyone. Hmm.

Leipold, of course, signed Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts this summer. Meanwhile, Leipold is one of the owners leading negotiations for their side, precisely one of the owners Parise would be calling out if he were assessing blame.

Awkward. Glad to see our former captain is off to a great start with his new boss lmao. I swear, you can't make up how stupid these people are.

[maxpower]

Apparently the mechanism is that everyone's cap hit is revalued to 87% of the current number and they still get paid what they are due. Then it moves forward as it would in the past.

So it's really just a game of "pretend we get paid 50% for as long as we can, guys who need to get paid... too bad."

[NJDevs4978]

... Zach Parise has been pretty vocal when it comes to calling out the owners as the lockout rages on. He’s sounded off before, but after seeing the NHL reject the players’ union’s three proposals this afternoon, he’s got his dander up again.

Parise tells Michael Russo of The Star-Tribune he’s upset about how the owners conducted business this summer with a lockout on the horizon they knew they’d put into effect and Wild owner Craig Leipold sort of gets called out.

“You have all these owners signing big deals minutes before the CBA expires and then going the next day, ‘We don’t want to pay these contracts,’” Parise said. “Maybe that’s how they conduct business. That just doesn’t seem right. What if us players signed a deal and said, ‘You know what, I actually want 15 percent more?’”

Russo asked Parise if he was, indeed, calling out Leipold and he wisely said he wasn’t “pointing fingers” at anyone. Hmm.

Leipold, of course, signed Parise and Ryan Suter to identical 13-year, $98 million contracts this summer. Meanwhile, Leipold is one of the owners leading negotiations for their side, precisely one of the owners Parise would be calling out if he were assessing blame.

Awkward. Glad to see our former captain is off to a great start with his new boss lmao. I swear, you can't make up how stupid these people are.

Not to mention Zach acts like this is all such a big surprise. Gee, your insistence on getting two guaranteed $10 million checks in FA couldn't have had ANYTHING to do with the impending labor issues, could it? I swear either everyone involved in this lockout is arrogant, stupid, or thinks everyone else is stupid.

[Zubie#8]

Stupid, arrogant, uneducated jocks. Some of these guys should just delete their twitter because it is embarrassing. They are so out of touch with reality.

[Triumph]

They accepted linkage and should understand how it works by now. Yes, 12% off the top is too much. They need to find a way to get to a happy medium. If they want to fight linkage altogether, that's another thing and they are entitled to that. Just as the league is entitled to change the linkage %.

They aren't fighting linkage as such. They are fighting the owners' attempt to use linkage to ding their current contracts, outside of the system they agreed to. That's why future contracts would still be subject to escrow.

Just find a way to do it that doesn't penalize them too heavily on the way down. 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 49 would be 51% exactly to the players over the lifetime. Seems pretty easy. The initial haircut would be insignificant and hopefully revenue would keep future ones away. Instead we have 12% haircuts and bizarre financial systems thought up out of thin air.

The owners haven't offered anything resembling this either. I think that's where they end up, maybe, but I don't know what happens once games start getting canceled for real.

Not to mention Zach acts like this is all such a big surprise. Gee, your insistence on getting two guaranteed $10 million checks in FA couldn't have had ANYTHING to do with the impending labor issues, could it? I swear either everyone involved in this lockout is arrogant, stupid, or thinks everyone else is stupid.

It has nothing to do with it. That's a contract that a player and an owner agreed to. The owner offered it and he accepted it. If it came out of the owner's pocket without him offering it, I think we'd all be correct in saying that yes, this lockout is happening for a reason other than the owners see fit to reduce the players' share because they have the power to do so.

[NJDevs4978]

It has nothing to do with it. That's a contract that a player and an owner agreed to. The owner offered it and he accepted it. If it came out of the owner's pocket without him offering it, I think we'd all be correct in saying that yes, this lockout is happening for a reason other than the owners see fit to reduce the players' share because they have the power to do so.

My point was that Zach's feigning surprise when he obviously prepared for this. Players weren't asking for huge up-front signing bonuses before this offseason. Then all of a sudden Parise, Suter, Weber, etc had to have a huge chunk of money up front this offseason. Gee, I wonder why?

[Triumph]

My point was that Zach's feigning surprise when he obviously prepared for this. Players weren't asking for huge up-front signing bonuses before this offseason. Then all of a sudden Parise, Suter, Weber, etc had to have a huge chunk of money up front this offseason. Gee, I wonder why?

They were offered that money. Also you are wrong about this, check out the Sabres on capgeek sometime. As players + agents realized that a lockout was inevitable (since the only way owners can control spending is by collectively bargaining $$$ out of the players), yes, many star players asked for bonuses that would come due on July 1, 2012.

[NJDevs4978]

The great irony of this whole thing is Zach is one of the handful of players who has the least to lose from a lockout, and Kovy probably has the most to lose - financially at least - given his lack of signing bonus and the fact his $11 million years start now. I don't know who else stands to lose that much this year among the players (though obviously Kovy will make a chunk of that back in the KHL), since most of the ones that have comparable salaries have them because of signing bonuses.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 18 October 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[Zubie#8]

You are right, Kovy makes the most money this year. There's a site that is keeping track of how much each individual player will lose each month but I forgot what website it is.

[Triumph]

The great irony of this whole thing is Zach is one of the handful of players who has the least to lose from a lockout, and Kovy probably has the most to lose - financially at least - given his lack of signing bonus and the fact his $11 million years start now. I don't know who else stands to lose that much this year among the players (though obviously Kovy will make a chunk of that back in the KHL), since most of the ones that have comparable salaries have them because of signing bonuses.

Zach is signed to a 13 year contract - he doesn't lose in a lockout, but he will lose enormously if the union comes back with a bad deal (which, if there's a lockout, they almost certainly will). They're in the same boat.

[Satans Hockey]

Ridiclious comments like this is why I can't stand this group of players...

""When people ask for money, they usually say `Give me your money or I'm going to hurt you,"' said Doan. "They don't say `Give me your money and I'm going to hurt you.'
"That's kind of the point we joke about, but that's where we're at.""

[NJDevs4978]

Ridiclious comments like this is why I can't stand this group of players...

""When people ask for money, they usually say `Give me your money or I'm going to hurt you,"' said Doan. "They don't say `Give me your money and I'm going to hurt you.'
"That's kind of the point we joke about, but that's where we're at.""

I don't love the players either, but how is Doan wrong? The owners' offer takes money out of the players' pockets AND offers downgrades in every other area (FA age, contract length, etc). The owners realistically have to offer 'something' of a carrot somewhere in the deal if they want the players to accept their financial system. Where is the improvement for the players in the current CBA proposal compared to the prior one? I understand they have to take a hit with this deal, but negotiation is not trying to bully a 100% one-sided deal either. It's going to be heavily slanted toward the owners as is when this is all said and done, that's obvious but where's the incentive to ever negotiate if you can just get every single thing you want?

I think the players should have agreed to the 50-50 part with the caveat of trying to negotiate some other issues upward in their favor off that. Honestly it's ridiculous that contract length should be capped at five years when owners were willingly signing much longer-term deals this offseason. Get rid of cap chicanery and then contract lengths will go down organically anyway. Almost every ten plus year deal other than DiPietro, Ovechkin and maybe Crosby has been signed with getting a more favorable cap number in mind.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 19 October 2012 - 07:19 AM.

[Satans Hockey]

I don't love the players either, but how is Doan wrong? The owners' offer takes money out of the players' pockets AND offers downgrades in every other area (FA age, contract length, etc). The owners realistically have to offer 'something' of a carrot somewhere in the deal if they want the players to accept their financial system. Where is the improvement for the players in the current CBA compared to the prior one? I understand they have to take a hit with this deal, but negotiation is not trying to bully a 100% one-sided deal either.

I think the players should have agreed to the 50-50 part and tried to negotiate some other issues upward off that.

I don't love the owners either but it's the tone of these players comments that I've been reading on here and on other places that I can't stand. They act like they are making some great sacrifice for us. that we should feel bad for these guys cause they are going to still make tons of money just a bit less. Where else can you have a union where guys can still go overseas and make millions of dollars instead of standing next to their union brothers. This whole thing is just a disgusting mess.

I'm sure if the owners were making comments and running their mouths all over the internet like the players are I would be just as aggravated with them but this whole situation really makes me contemplate why I even bother to support both sides with my hard earned cash. I'm getting to the point of canceling my season tickets just because both sides simply just don't deserve my money anymore. I have very little desire to support these idiotic, self entitled spoiled brat players. The owners aren't any better either.

It's a lot easier to ignore this stuff during non cba issue years cause the comments that I'm reading aren't around. I'm as big as Devils/NHL fan as there is out there and I'll always watch the games on tv but I'm really getting to the point where I have no desire to hand over a few thousand dollars anymore to support these guys when I feel like I'm being disrespected. I feel like I'm in a bad one sided abusive relationship and I'm finally realizing that I'll be better off if I finally end it.

In this days economy I don't have much desire to talk about the details of this CBA, I just want hockey back, I want my Devils back and I don't care anymore how it gets done, I just want it done.

[NJDevs4978]

I don't disagree with much of what you posted. If you relabeled the NHLPA Democrats and the owners Republicans you wouldn't see any difference at all between the NHL labor wars and daily battles in Congress. It's all bull****.

The difference between me and you is I don't take this **** personally. I get just as aggravated at the owners and players, but ultimately this nonsense isn't affecting my life other than not being able to watch and spend money on hockey games, which hurts both sides anyway. We can find other things to do with our time and money, they can't make money unless they get their **** together and stop trying to fight a PR war neither side's really going to 'win' in the long-term anyway.

Admittedly, I probably would take this more personally if it were Devil players (no, Barch doesn't count) making fools of themselves publicly like Toews, Bisonette, etc or Vanderbeek being a hard-line *** like the ultimate hypocrites Snider, Jacobs and Leipold. I spend money on the team, not the league as a whole.

Edited by NJDevs4978, 19 October 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[Chuck the Duck]

that's not entirely true - they can get there well before that but it will come out of future contracts. you are also incorrect that it is "literally" impossible to do in year 1. it is merely 99% impossible.

here's the best way i can explain this. let's say for easy math that revenue growth is 0 for the next five years and the league revenue is $100 dollars every year.

right now, players are entitled to $57 of that $100 and if you add up all the contracts on the books for this year, they will either equal $57. The players are paid over the season about $50 and the extra $7 is held in escrow just in case the league doesn't actually get $100 in revenue. If the league only makes, say $90 in revenue, the players will not get that extra $7. they'll get $1.30 (which would give them a total of $51.30 or 57% of $90).

so the players want to keep making $57 of that $100. the league wants them to make $50.

but here's the problem with the nhlpa's 50/50 year 1, no escrow suggestion: the players are already guaranteed about $57 for next year of $100. Teams have already committed to that in existing contracts and every side says no rollback is on the table. so unless the leagues revenues go to $114 next year, 50/50 is impossible and there is no way the league's revenues can go up 14% without every team selling out every game and every fan at every game buying a $300 authentic jersey. oh, and the winter classic would have to bring in about $60MM on its own.

in the owners proposal (again, assuming zero growth for easy math sake), you'll get let's say 7 years of $100 in revenue with a 50/50 split. that means the players' total contracts can add up to $50 every year.
as of RIGHT NOW, guaranteed existing contracts likely add up over the next 7 years to something like $57, $54, $50, $45, $42, $35, $20.
what the owners are saying is that the $7 this year and $4 next year that are over $50 will go towards the last 4 years in some way.
So instead of $45, $42, $35, and $20 of existing contracts, you've got $47, $44, $38 and $24.
assuming the same $50 available to players in future contracts, that means new contracts can be $3, $6, $12, and $26.

now in the real world, revenues are increasing and the total value of contracts drops way more each year than in my analogy. but this explains exactly what the owners latest offer is.

again, i don't think it's fair. i agree with triumph that what is "fair" and what would grow the league the most would be 50/50 with a soft cap and a luxury tax league that gives the 10 highest revenue teams a chance to use their advantage and fund the rest of the league through revenue sharing.

Don't get me wrong, this is a great way to simplify a complicated issue for those math challenged people like myself. However, my head just exploded reading this.

Edited by Chuck the Duck, 19 October 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[halfsharkalligatorhalfman]

James Mirtle did a good job breaking down the numbers assuming 5% revenue growth, and how both sides have different ideas about how exactly to get to 50-50 and what exactly that means

http://www.theglobea...article4622895/

[Devs1965]

I firmly believe these owners especially Leipold had no intention on paying full price and knew there would be a roll back, or lock out.
A contract is a contract pay the players what was promised.

[squishyx]

I firmly believe these owners especially Leipold had no intention on paying full price and knew there would be a roll back, or lock out.
A contract is a contract pay the players what was promised.

A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

[Triumph]

A contract that was written and signed with the understanding that a CBA exists. That "promise" had conditions that are no longer being met.

This is all ridiculous, the players need to drop the charade and take a 50/50 split and be done with it. Why should the players cave? because half the teams are losing money and that obviously isn't sustainable. If every team was very profitable and the players were arguing for a 5% raise then I would agree with them, but that's not the case. At this point it's about who has the least to lose can afford the longest hold out, and it's the owners for now.

Without increased revenue sharing, the owners will be back here in 6 years saying that 50/50 is untenable and they have to go to 45/55. And so it will continue indefinitely.