Around the NHL 2017

[TrueBlueGED]

Or demand a higher %

 

Yea, I'm sure Jacobs will get right on that :p

[3putt]

Yea, I'm sure Jacobs will get right on that :p

I always find it interesting that a private group of mega wealthy bend municipalities over on stadium deals, close the access to new membership and yet demand a share disproportionate to the value they bring. I watch to see McJesus and Crosby and Eichel do their thing not The Pegulas. But no need for argument I know I am in a very small minority.

[msw2112]

While I believe in a free market system in general, the salary cap has its place in preserving the integrity of the league.  Without one, in this day and age, we would probably see a disproportionate number of players signing in big markets with good teams.  How many Cups would Chicago and LA have won if there was no salary cap?  The cap (and the draft system) forces talented players to be more dispersed throughout the league, which creates parity and results in more teams being in the hunt.  Less cosmopolitan markets, particularly those that have not had recent success (both of which define Buffalo) are able to compete for Free Agent talent that might otherwise sign elsewhere.  

[Taro T]

Revenues will rise. Salaries will rise slower thanks to McTakingOneForManagement.

Players get 50% of the pie. Period.

 

As revenues go up, total salaries go up by 50% of the increase in revenues. As revenues go down, total salaries go down by 50% of that revenue decrease.

 

That is the pie the players have to divide amongst themselves. 50% of net HRR (w/ HRR spelled out specifically in the CBA) goes to the players. For simplicity, lets say HRR is $4B so the players have $2B. So, w/ 31 teams, on average there is $64.5MM to be paid out to the players of each team and roughly $2.8MM paid out on average to each player.

 

If the nominal value of all contracts is $2B, (i.e. the average each team spends is $64.5MM) then everybody gets the face value of his contract. If the nominal value of all contracts is $2.17B (I.e. the average each team spends is $70MM) then every player loses escrow & his payout is about 92% of what the nominal contract claims to be. If the nominal value of all contracts is only $1.9B, then each player would get 105% of his contract's nominal value. That is how the hard cap works.

 

If McClavicle takes a nominal $14MM that goes on top of what everybody else makes to come up w/ the total players contract nominal value which is then compared to 50% of HRR to determine the final REAL payout to the players. If he only gets $12MM then the total player contract nominal value that gets compared to 0.5HRR is $2MM lower and EVERYBODY's pay (except for McClavicle) is 0.1% higher than it would be had he gotten $14MM.

 

So by taking the lower pay, a $1MM/yr player gets an extra $1,000 and a $10MM/yr player gets an extra $10k. That's EACH year of the contract.

 

This isn't like a normal union contract where somebody getting more might bring everybody else up. The only way salaries go up is if HRR goes up &/or the players' % age of HRR increases (which won't happen until the next CBA at the earliest).

[Sabel79]

I'm not sure you're really understanding how this works. Whether McDavid gets $12.5M, $14.5M, or $2M, the owners are going to spend the same share of revenue on players. The only way for the players, as a group, to make more money, is for the league's revenues to grow.

  

Players get 50% of the pie. Period.

As revenues go up, total salaries go up by 50% of the increase in revenues. As revenues go down, total salaries go down by 50% of that revenue decrease.

That is the pie the players have to divide amongst themselves. 50% of net HRR (w/ HRR spelled out specifically in the CBA) goes to the players. For simplicity, lets say HRR is $4B so the players have $2B. So, w/ 31 teams, on average there is $64.5MM to be paid out to the players of each team and roughly $2.8MM paid out on average to each player.

If the nominal value of all contracts is $2B, (i.e. the average each team spends is $64.5MM) then everybody gets the face value of his contract. If the nominal value of all contracts is $2.17B (I.e. the average each team spends is $70MM) then every player loses escrow & his payout is about 92% of what the nominal contract claims to be. If the nominal value of all contracts is only $1.9B, then each player would get 105% of his contract's nominal value. That is how the hard cap works.

If McClavicle takes a nominal $14MM that goes on top of what everybody else makes to come up w/ the total players contract nominal value which is then compared to 50% of HRR to determine the final REAL payout to the players. If he only gets $12MM then the total player contract nominal value that gets compared to 0.5HRR is $2MM lower and EVERYBODY's pay (except for McClavicle) is 0.1% higher than it would be had he gotten $14MM.

So by taking the lower pay, a $1MM/yr player gets an extra $1,000 and a $10MM/yr player gets an extra $10k. That's EACH year of the contract.

This isn't like a normal union contract where somebody getting more might bring everybody else up. The only way salaries go up is if HRR goes up &/or the players' % age of HRR increases (which won't happen until the next CBA at the earliest).

I get how it works. Were the union not completely useless to begin with, McCalciumdeficiency would be used as a bellweather for the union in general. Instead they're willing to settle for less. Not because they have to, but because there's a long history of collusion and outright crimanilty in the NHLPA (ask any old timer about Alan Eggleston). So the rank and file take what they're told they can't get, those lucky few make out like bandits, and ownership everyone over because they can.

[Taro T]

I get how it works. Were the union not completely useless to begin with, McCalciumdeficiency would be used as a bellweather for the union in general. Instead they're willing to settle for less. Not because they have to, but because there's a long history of collusion and outright crimanilty in the NHLPA (ask any old timer about Alan Eggleston). So the rank and file take what they're told they can't get, those lucky few make out like bandits, and ownership ###### everyone over because they can.

You do realize that it's because of Eagleson that the union & owners still don't trust each other more than a decade after they became partners, right? (& if you're splitting revenues by a set %age, in this guy's eyes, you're by definition partners.) And, not to be argumentative, but really not sure how the players are getting boned by getting literally 1/2 the pie.

 

Eagleson was jailed, rightly, for what he did. If there's a hell, he'll be found there.

[Sabel79]

You do realize that it's because of Eagleson that the union & owners still don't trust each other more than a decade after they became partners, right? (& if you're splitting revenues by a set %age, in this guy's eyes, you're by definition partners.) And, not to be argumentative, but really not sure how the players are getting boned by getting literally 1/2 the pie.

Eagleson was jailed, rightly, for what he did. If there's a hell, he'll be found there.

Not to be argumentative back, but I think the definition of what constitutes "the pie" is slanted heavily toward the benefit of ownership. Union membership has much more to fear from the union than ownership does, IMO. Look at what's become of the majority of union leadership over the last twenty years.

[TrueBlueGED]

I always find it interesting that a private group of mega wealthy bend municipalities over on stadium deals, close the access to new membership and yet demand a share disproportionate to the value they bring. I watch to see McJesus and Crosby and Eichel do their thing not The Pegulas. But no need for argument I know I am in a very small minority.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing about what *should* be....I'm just saying, there is a 0% chance an ownership group led by Jeremy Jacobs gives the players a higher percentage of HRR. He'll die first.

Not to be argumentative back, but I think the definition of what constitutes "the pie" is slanted heavily toward the benefit of ownership. Union membership has much more to fear from the union than ownership does, IMO. Look at what's become of the majority of union leadership over the last twenty years.

 

Then you're really going to enjoy the next lockout when the owners try to re-define HRR to be more in their favor :p

[Taro T]

Not to be argumentative back, but I think the definition of what constitutes "the pie" is slanted heavily toward the benefit of ownership. Union membership has much more to fear from the union than ownership does, IMO. Look at what's become of the majority of union leadership over the last twenty years.

Are you talking union leadership in general or in the very limited & rather warped economics of professional sports union leadership? If it's the former, we're probably closer to agreement than I'd initially suspected. If it's the latter, unless we're only talking NFL, we probably are much further.

[Sabel79]

Are you talking union leadership in general or in the very limited & rather warped economics of professional sports union leadership? If it's the former, we're probably closer to agreement than I'd initially suspected. If it's the latter, unless we're only talking NFL, we probably are much further.

Very much the latter.

 

Edited to reflect the thing I was actually trying to convey as opposed to what my fingers did.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Sabres79

[That Aud Smell]

Pysyk get's three years.

 

$2,733,333 AAV

GM TM fail.

[LTS]

Perhaps I'm slanted in my view on this. I've work d both as a member of a union and management in a union shop. As management, I'm clapping my hands delightedly as McDavid devalues the cost of labor by himself. As a union member, I'm finding the mythical mob ties to have him killed (those don't exist and never have existed).

 

Long story short: Pull up the ladde, I'm aboard!"

 

Sigh.  The entire problem with unions summed up in one sentence.  Screw everyone, I'm the most important.  It's never about the team being successful, it's about how much can I get when I can get it.

 

Revenues will rise. Salaries will rise slower thanks to McTakingOneForManagement.

 

 

 

  

I get how it works. Were the union not completely useless to begin with, McCalciumdeficiency would be used as a bellweather for the union in general. Instead they're willing to settle for less. Not because they have to, but because there's a long history of collusion and outright crimanilty in the NHLPA (ask any old timer about Alan Eggleston). So the rank and file take what they're told they can't get, those lucky few make out like bandits, and ownership ###### everyone over because they can.

 

And they all get paid because we spend our dollars on the product.  We perpetuate the problem.  Makes for a far more interesting question.  If you feel strongly about how people are getting screwed over why are you a part of it?  (not just directed at you specifically, to everyone involved).  I sometimes play it out in my head and ask why I feel compelled to continue supporting millionaires and billionaires getting paid while more important things in this world are neglected.  I've yet to overcome my own irrational fandom and I know I'm far more moderate than a lot of people.

[Sabel79]

Sigh.  The entire problem with unions summed up in one sentence.  Screw everyone, I'm the most important.  It's never about the team being successful, it's about how much can I get when I can get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And they all get paid because we spend our dollars on the product.  We perpetuate the problem.  Makes for a far more interesting question.  If you feel strongly about how people are getting screwed over why are you a part of it?  (not just directed at you specifically, to everyone involved).  I sometimes play it out in my head and ask why I feel compelled to continue supporting millionaires and billionaires getting paid while more important things in this world are neglected.  I've yet to overcome my own irrational fandom and I know I'm far more moderate than a lot of people.

It's easy to look at the dollar amounts involved and the lack of relation they have to the reality of the world as lived in by 99.9% of us, but the theme remains the same. These questions could also be asked about buying cars, phones, groceries. Not going any deeper down that rabbit hole for obvious reasons.

 

In the specific example of the NHL labor situation, it can be seen coming a mile away. We'll lose at least half another season to produce another CBA in which the players are bent over. There's the team and then there's the TEAM. I get it, they make a lot of money; but in a capitalist system why they or anyone should be blamed for attempting to increase what they're worth is beyond me.

[Rasmus_]

GM TM fail.

 

Shrugs, I guess he'd be an improvement over Gorges and Bogosian, but I think he doesn't have as much offensive upside as Beaulieu and or Antipin.  I don't really miss him that much.  He's a useful mid pairing defensemen.

[shrader]

I will forever refuse to refer to any system where billionaires and millionaire collectively pull in the same amount of money as "being bent over".  I'm also not going to point a finger at either side should they lock out again since both play a role in slowing down that process.  As you say, players shouldn't be blamed for attempting to increase their worth, but the owners shouldn't either.

[Sabel79]

I will forever refuse to refer to any system where billionaires and millionaire collectively pull in the same amount of money as "being bent over".  I'm also not going to point a finger at either side should they lock out again since both play a role in slowing down that process.  As you say, players shouldn't be blamed for attempting to increase their worth, but the owners shouldn't either.

Fair enough and agreed to in part.

 

My main issue is that there appears, IMO, to be a free pass given to ownership (on this specific issue) whereas players get pressure from multiple sides to take less and less of a pie that is growing, claims of the latter camp notwithstanding. Again, the dollars involved make all parties (especially the players for reasons) relatively unsympathetic, but it's reflective of a wider theme.

[3putt]

I will forever refuse to refer to any system where billionaires and millionaire collectively pull in the same amount of money as "being bent over".  I'm also not going to point a finger at either side should they lock out again since both play a role in slowing down that process.  As you say, players shouldn't be blamed for attempting to increase their worth, but the owners shouldn't either.

LVGK entry fee was not classified as Hockey Related Revenue.  500mm.  It seems that The players were subject to movement and exposure as part of the process.  If that was HRR the cap would have risen considerably and the need for escrow would have been removed while paying down the current balance releasing funds to the players.  I just don't think the pie is as evenly shared as many would like to think. 

[shrader]

LVGK entry fee was not classified as Hockey Related Revenue.  500mm.  It seems that The players were subject to movement and exposure as part of the process.  If that was HRR the cap would have risen considerably and the need for escrow would have been removed while paying down the current balance releasing funds to the players.  I just don't think the pie is as evenly shared as many would like to think. 

 

It definitely isn't, but with each pass, they're getting a bigger piece of that pie.  They're doing very well for themselves, no matter what anyone thinks.  That new team should add a sizeable amount of HRR to the pie, so the players will see a good amount of benefit from it.  I wish I knew what the typical revenue was per team because I'd be curious to see how that balances out with the additional team's worth of players now drawing from the player's share.

[LGR4GM]

LVGK entry fee was not classified as Hockey Related Revenue.  500mm.  It seems that The players were subject to movement and exposure as part of the process.  If that was HRR the cap would have risen considerably and the need for escrow would have been removed while paying down the current balance releasing funds to the players.  I just don't think the pie is as evenly shared as many would like to think. 

I would argue that due to the nature of expansion being a 1 time fee it realistically could not be included in HRR. Their could be a percent of that expansion given to the players however.

 

That said, expansion opened up more jobs and more opportunities to expand HRR. While the players may not receive direct benefits they receive benefits down the road. 

 

I don't want to defend the owners. They seem hell bent on lockouts every time they have a chance so not the biggest fan of them. 

[3putt]

My point is simply that a portion as you note could have been designated as HRR, and it may have improved the escrow situation considerably.  Goodwill toward avoiding a lockout.  But I think a lockout is desired especially by the likes of Jacobs. 

[LGR4GM]

My point is simply that a portion as you note could have been designated as HRR, and it may have improved the escrow situation considerably.  Goodwill toward avoiding a lockout.  But I think a lockout is desired especially by the likes of Jacobs. 

Seems to be the way they are heading. 

[I-90 W]

I'm a shop steward myself and it is very difficult to recognize the NHLPA as a certified union; yes they engage in collective bargaining etc but they represent individual agents that work for 31 different owners. All paid differently (within peramiters outlined in the cba) and no tier system.

[Brawndo]

One of the problems the NHLPA faces is cap floor teams. How many teams do not spend to the cap such as Arizona, Florida and even Anaheim. This is millions of unspend cap room that only hurts the players. There should be a rule change that allows teams to sell in used cap space to other teams, with the half the money going to the team and the other half going to the players.

 

I believe the NHLPA should push for a soft cap, where teams can roll extra cap space into an upcoming season. Also allow each team to designate one or two contracts for reduced cap hits, meaning that only 75% of the AAV counts towards the cap. The caveat is this can only be used on players who have re-signed with their own team. However by doing this a team would be restricted on the amount they can spend in UFA. This incentivizes teams drafting and developing their own talent

[Thorner]

GM TM fail.

This remains the only deal of his that bugs me.

[shrader]

One of the problems the NHLPA faces is cap floor teams. How many teams do not spend to the cap such as Arizona, Florida and even Anaheim. This is millions of unspend cap room that only hurts the players. There should be a rule change that allows teams to sell in used cap space to other teams, with the half the money going to the team and the other half going to the players.

 

I believe the NHLPA should push for a soft cap, where teams can roll extra cap space into an upcoming season. Also allow each team to designate one or two contracts for reduced cap hits, meaning that only 75% of the AAV counts towards the cap. The caveat is this can only be used on players who have re-signed with their own team. However by doing this a team would be restricted on the amount they can spend in UFA. This incentivizes teams drafting and developing their own talent

 

Cap floor teams do not change a thing.  As Taro stated earlier, the players are guaranteed an exact percentage of the total revenue, nothing more and nothing less.  So in other words, there is an exact amount of dollars that are given out to the players.  If the sum of salaries winds up being less than that numbers, the differences is divided up proportionally among all players.

 

If all teams spend up to the cap, the players would more than likely wind up handing money back to the owners.  I don't know the exact numbers on the whole thing, in the CBA, there is a complex calculation that determines the mid-point for salaries.  They then add $8 million to that for the cap and subtract $8 million for the floor.  I'd imagine it's actually that mid-point that they expect to be the total amount spent per team.

Edited July 7, 2017 by shrader