Players may be in dark over 50/50 split

[Call of Doughty]

http://www.startribune.com/sports/bl...sos_Rants.html

Russo was on XM NHL radio on my way home, and he made this new article available to the general public.

In a nutshell, he claims that "most" of the NHL players believe that a 50/50 revenue split was a done deal. But according to Russo, the NHLPA is only willing to go as low as ~52% in the final year of the deal. Sounds like they are not even close.

"So regardless of loss assumptions, the NHLPA never gets to 50/50 over the course of its proposal, according to the NHL charts."


I'm not expert on any of this, but I found the interview quite interesting. You can read his blog above. He also was in contact with a few NHL players who did not know about this uneven split of revenue in the final year. Fehr's got some explaining to do.

Hope all is well with everyone

Signed,
very bored

[Maaaasquito]

It's all smoke screens and posturing from both parties, which is what the ridiculous thing about all of this.

If they honestly went down to the nitty gritty of trying to solve the 3 big factors of how to split HRR, player contracts and who pays for the lockout, then this lockout could be solved within a couple of hours... As long as both sides are willing to concede something to the other.

Seriously just get an independent arbitrator in there to meet half way between both sides and this thing could be solved in a day...

All this taking a break from taking a break is just ridiculous...

Make an ultimatum and say this is the best and final offer, you have 72 hours to take it or leave it, or we'll cancel the season. State it publicly then follow up on it, that might actually get the PA willing to accept something that might not entirely be to their liking, all of these empty threats of cancelling all games till Nov. 15, Winter Classic, Dec. 1, Dec. 15th... Jan 1st... Feb 1st... then season are all just empty threats. All that does is still give them a glimmer of hope to hold out for the best possible deal, so why would they want to cave when there's no urgency. Make it a reality for these players and offer them an ultimatum, if you don't accept this forget about a paycheck this year and go and feel free to look for other employment opportunities or alternatives, as we will not negotiate until say June 15th, that might actually accomplish something. When June rolls around now the players know it's for real, could they afford to miss a 2nd season? Fehr is the voice for the majority, when the players face the reality of missing a 2nd season worth of paychecks, Fehr would be ousted just as quickly as Goodenow and Kelly, when the players realize that their livelihoods are seriously in jeopardy.

[NoWayOut]

I think the whole point now is breaking the union, and has been ever since the last CBA. The NHL won't be satisfied, and is holding out, until that happens. They missed their chance in '04/05 and they will go all out to do it this time. Even if they kill the patient to kill the cancer, so to speak.

[Maaaasquito]

Originally Posted by NoWayOut

I think the whole point now is breaking the union, and has been ever since the last CBA. The NHL won't be satisfied, and is holding out, until that happens. They missed their chance in '04/05 and they will go all out to do it this time. Even if they kill the patient to kill the cancer, so to speak.

If they're out to break the union, then go about it with an iron fisted way... none of this here's our best offer, then 2 weeks later here's our best offer, another 2 weeks later here's our best offer...

What'd it go? 43% to 47% to 50%? I mean if I were the union, and looked at those figures, they went from 43 to 50, well why would I want to bend now? Why not hold out for 52%...

[NoWayOut]

Originally Posted by Maaaasquito

If they're out to break the union, then go about it with an iron fisted way... none of this here's our best offer, then 2 weeks later here's our best offer, another 2 weeks later here's our best offer...

What'd it go? 43% to 47% to 50%? I mean if I were the union, and looked at those figures, they went from 43 to 50, well why would I want to bend now? Why not hold out for 52%...

The way they're going about it, making their best offer a moving target, is just proof of their inability to grasp that we as fans see through their BS for what it is. Here again my personal belief is that they think we're just dumbass peasants who can't grasp what it is they're doing. So they make their offers and try to continue painting the players as the unreasonable ones, all the while thinking we'll believe it, if they even care what we think.

This whole taking steps in the direction of compromise with the NHLPA, and then saying well we've done all we can and they won't budge, they're being unreasonable, is merely stall tactics to force the players to feel the hurt and break with Fehr. They're just trying to come off less heavy handed in the court of public opinion, but the end result in their eyes is what they wanted but didn't get last time around, no NHLPA. Or at least one that is so fractured and internally contentious it effectively neuters itself.

[yougo]

I am quite curious as how could any hockey fan side with the owners.

3rd lockout in 15 years. 1 lost season. Highest revenues by the league ever with the CBA , they wanted. Now we are heading into december with no hockey mostly because the owners are being ruthless.

It's time for some billionaires to step up and start a new league. The NHL will never be able to win over the fans ever IMO. Atleast me.

I will buy fake jerseys, fake hats, I will illegally stream their games but I don't think that I will ever give another penny to the NHL if we miss another season.

[Maaaasquito]

What a bunch of clowns... If I, a high-school PE teacher, can figure this out how can a bunch of corporate suits who are earning an annual salary that's 8 of my lifetime salary not figure this out?

Attached is a couple of files based on Russo's numbers...

If they did a rolling wage cutback from 54% to 50% (over 5 years), with a make whole of $400 mil, they're off by about $407 mil over the lifetime of the new CBA. Let's say players concede $200 mil, NHL adds $200 in "make whole" everything breaks even...

If they did a rolling wage cutback from 55% to 51% (over 5 years), with a make whole of $400 mil, they're off by about $231 mil. Let's say players concede $115 mil, NHL adds $116 mil in "make whole" everything breaks even...

If they did a rolling wage cutback from 56% to 52% (over 5 years), with a make whole of $400 mil, they're off by about $55 mil. Let's say players concede $25 mil, NHL adds $30 mil in "make whole" everything breaks even... League still generates a profit, players get all their money back plus 1.75% annual increase.

I also ran the "worst case numbers" (if the revenue drops by 17.5%), in my 56 to 52% they're off by about 194 mil... If player's concede $97 mil, league concedes $97 mil, everything is square again...

The "best" scenario that I found was 60%, 56%, 54%, 52%, 50% where they would just be $18.7 mil off with the NHL kicking in $400 mil in "make whole".

The biggest kicker that I used to bridge the gap is the "make whole" under Russo's numbers the NHL was only willing to concede $200 mil, I bumped that up to $400 mil, so that might be a sticking point for the owners... With that said, if they are going to can the season, how much lost revenue would that actually equate to? So the owners conceding $400 mil, might actually get this deal done. Considering they're the ones that "negotiated" the contracts in "good faith", them honoring $400 mil worth of contracts over 5 years isn't really asking for a lot is it?

Get it done!

[Maaaasquito]

Another scenario if there is only a $200 mil make whole...
60, 58, 56, 53, 50 seems to be the best case.

So I mean with this scenario:

What do the owners get out of it:
-They get cost certainty by the fifth year of the CBA, if they extend it for say 7-8 years or upwards of 10 they have cost certainty for the next decade at a much more workable rate of 50/50.
-They also have much more room for revenue sharing amongst the teams instead of dedicating a larger chunk of revenue to player salaries.
-With the numbers offered by Russo, the salary cap would be controlled and sustained at $59.6 mil, $65.5 mil, $66.4 mil, $65.9 mil, $65.3 mil for the first 5 years, then $68.6 mil, $72 mil and $75.6 mil in the next 3 years and $79.4 mil and $83.3 mil over 10 years.
-They would save $1.1 bil over the course of the first 5 years of the CBA compared to paying out 57% of HRR to the players for 5 years based on a 5% annual increase in HRR.
-If the numbers are closer to what the player's predicted (7% growth factor), there would be a much steadier salary cap growth from $59.5 mil to $65.5 mil, $67.6 mil, $68.5 mil, $69.1 mil, $74.0 mil, $79.2 mil, $84.7 mil, $90.6 mil then finally $97.0 mil.

What do the players get out of it:
-They get their guaranteed contracts honored, over the course of the next CBA.
-In fact they actually would get a higher percentage of league revenue in the next 2 seasons (60% and 58%), than they would under the current CBA. The 3rd season would see them drop down to 56%, but still take in $1.99 bil. 4th and 5th years would be where the players concede a bit more money, $1.94 to $1.96 bil, but with that said, if the annual growth is higher than 5% it would mean more to the player pie.
-If the growth projections (7%) according to the union actually eventuate, the HRR would actually increase from $2.97 bil to $3.39 bil, $3.62 bil, $3.88 bil and finally to $4.15 bil in the 5th year... the player share would actually go from $1.78 bil to $1.96 bil, $2.02 bil, $2.06 bil then $2.08 bil (which is $200 mil more in player revenues than what they took in last season and an annual growth rate of about 2.2%, which is higher than the 1.75% that the PA wants guaranteed).
-With $149 mil in "make whole" the players would actually make more money this year than it would under the old CBA ($1.916 bil vs. $1.93 bil).
-They would get 60% of the HRR from this shortened season instead of 0% if the season is actually lost.
-Less harsh than a straight off the bat 50/50 scenario, it gets eased into it over 5 years.

What do I get out of it:
-I get to watch bloody hockey again and worrying about kicking Dobber's ass in the Expert Pool.
-I also get 10 years of labour peace, so I don't have to deal with this crap every 7 years.

Now if they can sort out all of the contract crap, and who pays for the lost revenue from this season this thing can be sorted...

[doulos]

I honestly don't think people realize the worlds these folks live in.


Millions and Billions of dollars are involved with people who live extraordinarily different lifestyles than the average person.

For the owners I really think this is about making the players their little playtoys so that they can run the league the way they want. They proably also see the Union as evil and useless and want to crush it like a bug to show their alpha male dominance.

For the players they think they have some sort of right to actually demand that they be treated fairly. Well it isn't going to happen because they ARE seen as cattle and will be treated as such.

Then you have Fehr who seemingly wants to treat this whole situation as a chance to go riding off on a horse and seen as the one who 'stuck it to the NHL'

This isn't about compromise and finding a deal that makes sense.

It's about being the "winner", even if that means losing millions of dollars to do so.

At the end of the day the boys with the least amount of money (the players) will cave. It's the way the real world (fair or not) works.

[DuklaNation]

This 1.75% increase that I read about should never get to the bargaining stage if there wasnt a rollback tied to it. Talk about backdoor cap increase. A 1.75% if its compounded is ludicrous. There should be room here for a settlement but if you're willing to lose money in order to win the deal, anything is possible I guess.