Jump to content
Daniel

2019 Offseason Thread

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Devilsfan118 said:

I'm not too ashamed to admit I have no clue what "escrow" means in this context.

I assume it's money the players will eventually get back.. right?

From what I understand, a % of their paychecks are put into escrow.  After the season is done they see if certain league-wide revenue targets were hit and they get a % back based on if and how close they hit those targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDfan1711 said:

What exactly of the player's is put in escrow, and are they not allowed to touch it for a certain period of time?

It’s money deducted from every player’s check to assure a 50/50 split in revenues equally between players and owners. At the end of the season when total revenue is calculated, it is then determined if the players get that money back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

From what I understand, a % of their paychecks are put into escrow.  After the season is done they see if certain league-wide revenue targets were hit and they get a % back based on if and how close they hit those targets.

I was actually going to assume it was their bonus money, be it an initial signing bonus or performance-based bonus - that I could sort of understand.  But I'm not sure why some of their regular paycheck would be put in escrow.  I can understand them not wanting a portion of their money held back and only distributed based on how the league does, which is probably out of their control  (I assume again that it's in terms of overall revenue, which would be based on things like marketing, and the overall economy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

It’s money deducted from every player’s check to assure a 50/50 split in revenues equally between players and owners. At the end of the season when total revenue is calculated, it is then determined if the players get that money back. 

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NJDfan1711 said:

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

No, their regular salary has a deduction for escrow. Consider it like a regular payroll deduction, like FICA. It’s deducted every paycheck. Then, at the end of the season when total league revenue is calculated, it’s then determined if the players get the total sum of those escrow deductions back. It’s all tied to an equal 50/50 split between owners and players. There is the chance the players never recover that money, and that’s what they hate (and rightfully so), because it’s money from their negotiated salaries, not bonus money. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

What "revenue" though?  If you say it's from their check, then that's the salary that a player is earning.  Are you saying they get extra money based on whether or not the league overperforms based on certain metrics?

It's from their regular paychecks and it is for that HRR (hockey related revenue) that was hotly contested in 2013.  The agreement from the 2013 CBA was that the split was 50/50 between owners and players (previously it was something like 57% players and 43% owners).

HRR are things like ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sundstrom said:

The next work stoppage wouldn't be a lockout - it would be a player strike. Because the owners would pretty much keep the CBA as is.

There is one hill the players will die on - escrow. they'll want that lowered.

I think the players understand that escrow is just a fact of life, no matter how much they complain about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

I was expecting around $8M.  Regardless the $8.5M to $9.5M just makes it either overpaid or very overpaid.  UFA by default are getting insane deals these days and he was up there in terms of UFA forwards available.  I expect Eberle will cost around $7M based on these numbers.  Panarin, on the other hand, is easily getting $11M+.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

No, their regular salary has a deduction for escrow. Consider it like a regular payroll deduction, like FICA. It’s deducted every paycheck. Then, at the end of the season when total league revenue is calculated, it’s then determined if the players get the total sum of those escrow deductions back. It’s all tied to an equal 50/50 split between owners and players. There is the chance the players never recover that money, and that’s what they hate (and rightfully so), because it’s money from their negotiated salaries, not bonus money. 

 

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

It's from their regular paychecks and it is for that HRR (hockey related revenue) that was hotly contested in 2013.  The agreement from the 2013 CBA was that the split was 50/50 between owners and players (previously it was something like 57% players and 43% owners).

HRR are things like ticket sales, merchandise, TV deals, etc. 

The 50/50 split sounds fair, but what's the actual % that's escrowed?  That is the figure that actually makes the world of difference.  If I'm making $10M a season and 1% is escrowed, then essentially if everything goes right, myself and the league split $100,000, so I'm only losing out on $50,000 of my $10M salary, but if the escrow percentage is say 10%, then I'm splitting 1 million dollars down the middle, and losing $500,000 of my paycheck - a huge difference.  

I guess I just don't get why players have any of their money escrowed.  As a GM/owner, you agree to pay a player X amount per year, that should be what he brings home for that season, and it should be his and his only.  On the flipside, I also don't see why players would get a cut of ticket sales - I thought that number was essentially the money owners used to pay player salaries.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

 

The 50/50 split sounds fair, but what's the actual % that's escrowed?  That is the figure that actually makes the world of difference.  If I'm making $10M a season and 1% is escrowed, then essentially if everything goes right, myself and the league split $100,000, so I'm only losing out on $50,000 of my $10M salary, but if the escrow percentage is say 10%, then I'm splitting 1 million dollars down the middle, and losing $500,000 of my paycheck - a huge difference.  

I guess I just don't get why players have any of their money escrowed.  As a GM/owner, you agree to pay a player X amount per year, that should be what he brings home for that season, and it should be his and his only.  On the flipside, I also don't see why players would get a cut of ticket sales - I thought that number was essentially the money owners used to pay player salaries.  

I am not sure what the % is now for the escrow, but the latest figure I have is from 2015 where 15% of the players salary is escrowed.  That year the players got a little over 2% back.

I believe the thought is that both the players and owners should have skin in the game in terms of the health of the league.  This agreement is in the CBA and both sides agreed to it, so players are well aware that whatever contract they signed they will have to give/have withheld a decent portion towards the escrow. 

Here is a good graphic with how much of the player loses when he is paid:

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Daniel said:

I think the players understand that escrow is just a fact of life, no matter how much they complain about it. 

Many italians love escrow (in soups etc.) pronounced "schkrarrole" (I know, that was really bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the graphic/photo I posted brought up another point where I think the owners may want to address in upcoming CBA talks: state tax.  There are states like Florida where they have no state income tax.  That puts other teams at a disadvantage as in Toews' hypothetical case it gives him over 680K more reasons to sign there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MadDog2020 said:

Eight years at $8.5-$9.5 per for Jeff Skinner? Lmfao. 

As the salary cap keeps going up, and more specifically the max individual player salary per year, so too will contracts for players who you might consider "average", like Skinner.  Personally, I think he's above average, but that's beside the point.  I'll never forget when, just a year or two ago, in one of the threads on here we were discussing salary caps and salaries, and I thought the max player salary per year was still like 8-9M or something like that, and someone informed me that it was actually like 13 or 14 at the time.  I couldn't believe it.  But, with that in mind, I always look at it this way:  whatever the max annual salary is per player (I actually don't know what it is at the moment, but let's say it's $15M/yr), then I try to envision a scale, with 1M being the lowest a player can be paid (I know it's lower than that), and $15M being the highest someone can be paid.  Simple math would state that the median number there would be 7.5, which you would assume an "average" NHL player would make.  Now, regardless of how you feel about Skinner as a player (as mentioned, I personally considered him to be slightly above average), even if you do consider him merely average, 8.5/9.5 isn't really that much more than 7.5.  

I know that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, but I think it applies and makes sense (to me at least) :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, vadvlfan said:

Many italians love escrow (in soups etc.) pronounced "schkrarrole" (I know, that was really bad)

I always thought scharrole was money? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

As the salary cap keeps going up, and more specifically the max individual player salary per year, so too will contracts for players who you might consider "average", like Skinner.  Personally, I think he's above average, but that's beside the point.  I'll never forget when, just a year or two ago, in one of the threads on here we were discussing salary caps and salaries, and I thought the max player salary per year was still like 8-9M or something like that, and someone informed me that it was actually like 13 or 14 at the time.  I couldn't believe it.  But, with that in mind, I always look at it this way:  whatever the max annual salary is per player (I actually don't know what it is at the moment, but let's say it's $15M/yr), then I try to envision a scale, with 1M being the lowest a player can be paid (I know it's lower than that), and $15M being the highest someone can be paid.  Simple math would state that the median number there would be 7.5, which you would assume an "average" NHL player would make.  Now, regardless of how you feel about Skinner as a player (as mentioned, I personally considered him to be slightly above average), even if you do consider him merely average, 8.5/9.5 isn't really that much more than 7.5.  

I know that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at it, but I think it applies and makes sense (to me at least) :) 

I couldn’t care less about the cap going up. Jeff Skinner isn’t worth that kind of money or term. Better Buffalo than us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

I always thought scharrole was money? 

It’s both. Some of you guys are from another planet. 

Edited by mfitz804

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I am not sure what the % is now for the escrow, but the latest figure I have is from 2015 where 15% of the players salary is escrowed.  That year the players got a little over 2% back.

I believe the thought is that both the players and owners should have skin in the game in terms of the health of the league.  This agreement is in the CBA and both sides agreed to it, so players are well aware that whatever contract they signed they will have to give/have withheld a decent portion towards the escrow. 

Here is a good graphic with how much of the player loses when he is paid:

spacer.png

Interesting.  I knew the stuff about taxes, federal and state of course, and obviously the agent is going to get a commission, but just didn't know there was an escrow portion too.  I suppose it's not crazy to think that the players and owners should share responsibility for the health of the league, and with that being the case I do think 50/50 split is the way to go, but I still don't see why you can't just keep the two separate like I had mentioned - players make X and are entitled to X, owners receive Y and are entitled to Y.  I imagine at some point there was a disparity between the two, most likely from the team's perspective where they were paying high salaries and had a high cap figure each year, but weren't bringing in much money, but you'd have to think if you're paying player John Doe (and maybe several others) a high annual salary, that he and those other teammates are worth that salary, and would probably attract viewers, whereby adding to your revenue, so it all evens out.  Unless of course you're just a moron GM and made bad signings, which can and does happen a lot we know, but in that regard that's your own fault, and I feel like the owners/GMs should eat that responsibility.  Why should I as a player share my salary when that's what you agreed to pay me?  I realize this is very much a capitalistic point of view, but that's business for ya, so I don't see an issue with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He only puts $18k in his 401k annually?? That seems unwise.

EDIT: Current maximum is $19,000, I’m sure it was $18k at the time. That sucks, guys making that much should be able to do more. 

Edited by mfitz804

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mfitz804 said:

He only puts $18k in his 401k annually?? That seems unwise. 

I'm assuming the modest return on his 401k doesn't make sense for him to tie up a ton of money there. He likely has a dedicated financial team using a much larger chunk of money for his retirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

He only puts $18k in his 401k annually?? That seems unwise. 

Pretty sure that's the max.

 

EDIT:  Looked it up, it is.  $18,500, actually.

Edited by NJDfan1711

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I thought it would be significantly higher. 

Sucks for him, but I guess he makes enough to not need the tax benefits anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

He only puts $18k in his 401k annually?? That seems unwise.

EDIT: Current maximum is $19,000, I’m sure it was $18k at the time. That sucks, guys making that much should be able to do more. 

I was looking at that and thought that I am not too far off from me(though I probably put more in that I need to).  However, I also forgot there was a max so that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I am ill-informed, but isn't the top tax bracket these days for Federal 37% instead of 39.6%?  I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DevsMan84 said:

I was looking at that and thought that I am not too far off from me(though I probably put more in that I need to).  However, I also forgot there was a max so that makes sense.

I guess, in theory, when we retire we’ll all be on the same level and need the same amount of money to “live” on.

Except that he’ll retire when he’s like my age, and I’ll have to work forever lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.