I drink EVIAN. Does that count?

- bloatedmosquito

You would never assess your thirst based on Evian. Only Gatorade is appropriate for a manly thirst... unless you have high blood pressure, in which case the salts in Gatorade are not good and you are a bloated mosquito...

so, yeah, Evian counts.

Guess the question I would like to ask... is "if" the players have been negotiating up to this point which you say they have. And year one of this proposal comes in a closer to 56% ( some say 55 but the numbers I am hearing is 56) What exactly have the players moved since the locked started. We have been in this position for over 2 months and the players have moved from 57 to 56. And still don't get to 50% at all during the 5 year CBA...

I really want Sid to get back on TV and tell me what the players have given up... did they go from 57 to 56.9 to 56.8 to 56.5 to 56.... at this rate Sid your gonna be dead by the time you sign a CBA
- TSTER

AND apparently they did not give in on guaranteed increases(or status quo) or delinkage either...

Players also asked for a guarantee that the salary cap wouldn't dip below $67.25 million and that from the second year on, the players' dollar share could not be less than the year before.
- Kevin Allen

While all of you were in here talking CBA, this kid was getting his.

https://pbs.twimg.com/med...A8Rn-YLCUAIe9OH.jpg:large

Guess the question I would like to ask... is "if" the players have been negotiating up to this point which you say they have. And year one of this proposal comes in a closer to 56% ( some say 55 but the numbers I am hearing is 56) What exactly have the players moved since the locked started. We have been in this position for over 2 months and the players have moved from 57 to 56. And still don't get to 50% at all during the 5 year CBA...

I really want Sid to get back on TV and tell me what the players have given up... did they go from 57 to 56.9 to 56.8 to 56.5 to 56.... at this rate Sid your gonna be dead by the time you sign a CBA
- TSTER

If you factor in the make whole numbers the players proposed, the deal gets to about 50.3% in year 4. And since there is no make whole payment attached to year 5 in the proposed deal. The players share is exactly at 50% in year 5 of the deal. That is moving towards the Owner's.

While all of you were in here talking CBA, this kid was getting his.

https://pbs.twimg.com/med...A8Rn-YLCUAIe9OH.jpg:large
- Travis Yost

At first glance I thought it looked staged, therefore not funny. But then I realized that it was broadcasted live on TV. Now that's funny.

If you factor in the make whole numbers the players proposed, the deal gets to about 50.3% in year 4. And since there is no make whole payment attached to year 5 in the proposed deal. The players share is exactly at 50% in year 5 of the deal. That is moving towards the Owner's.
- MJL

Honest and serious question, no BS, I genuinely want your opinion on this because you view things from the opposite side that I do.

I think I read the PA proposed a 5 year deal. Why? I mean I heard the theory that they would have added leverage because of the 100 year anniversary. I just don't buy that explanation and can't imagine that is a motive for them.

I am surprised they would not want to avoid all this, yet again, for as long as possible. I would think BOTH sides would not want to repeat this.

If you factor in the make whole numbers the players proposed, the deal gets to about 50.3% in year 4. And since there is no make whole payment attached to year 5 in the proposed deal. The players share is exactly at 50% in year 5 of the deal. That is moving towards the Owner's.
- MJL

Who are you?
How do you know this?

Honest and serious question, no BS, I genuinely want your opinion on this because you view things from the opposite side that I do.

I think I read the PA proposed a 5 year deal. Why? I mean I heard the theory that they would have added leverage because of the 100 year anniversary. I just don't buy that explanation and can't imagine that is a motive for them.

I am surprised they would not want to avoid all this, yet again, for as long as possible. I would think BOTH sides would not want to repeat this.
- Aetherial

I don't know why the PA wants a 5 year deal. I could guess that the PA is expecting the League to rebound and revenue start to escalate again. I agree that the deal should be longer then 5 years. And I would expect the League to push for a longer deal.

Who are you?
How do you know this?
- sloppyseconds2

I'm just a guy on the internet, and I know this because I can read.

If you factor in the make whole numbers the players proposed, the deal gets to about 50.3% in year 4. And since there is no make whole payment attached to year 5 in the proposed deal. The players share is exactly at 50% in year 5 of the deal. That is moving towards the Owner's.
- MJL

You're here (Not that I'm really surprised)

These numbers cited above are based on what expected revenue increases?..because the proposal sets a minimum cap limit. My arithmetic pegs this proposal as a NHLPA concession if, and only if, revenue increases are less than ~ 3.7%. Do your numbers match up?

If you factor in the make whole numbers the players proposed, the deal gets to about 50.3% in year 4. And since there is no make whole payment attached to year 5 in the proposed deal. The players share is exactly at 50% in year 5 of the deal. That is moving towards the Owner's.
- MJL

Ok fair enough... i know I don't have the info that you have, but I am wondering if this is their latest offer which really isn't very attractive to the owners. What were the previous 5 they made.... This looks more like a first offer than their 5 or 6. I think what is frustrating the simple fan like myself is, It doesn't appear the NHLPA has really put anything on paper... other than we agree "in principle to get to 50/50" That's like me telling my wife... I agree in principle to cleaning the bathroom daily.... but i won't tell you how I am going to get their or when i am going to start. Yet the NHLPA and those that are speaking in the media truly believe that they have actually negotiated. I think that is why the simple fan like myself was so pissed at Crosby's words to the media....

Honest and serious question, no BS, I genuinely want your opinion on this because you view things from the opposite side that I do.

I think I read the PA proposed a 5 year deal. Why? I mean I heard the theory that they would have added leverage because of the 100 year anniversary. I just don't buy that explanation and can't imagine that is a motive for them.

I am surprised they would not want to avoid all this, yet again, for as long as possible. I would think BOTH sides would not want to repeat this.
- Aetherial

Because the NHLPA are a bunch of assholes?

That is where you dont understand how ebita really works being on the other side of the fence. It is a calculation on how profitable a company can be, as long as companies dont screw with the numbers. What you want is cash flow and from what you said before it is the ability to simply pay something back. You wont get that from EBITA, and that is why you wouldnt use it. EBITA may not be the end all of calculations but we are not even talking the same thing here.
- KOS

My company is publicly traded. We still don't give a rat's ass about EBITA, EBIDTA, or any other measure that ignores critical pieces of the financial picture - and for good reason. It's potentially misleading and subject to manipulation, and your "... as long as companies don't screw with the numbers" qualifier is difficult for outsiders to verify. The only reason we ever do anything with it is because invariably some outside entity wants it. (Of course, if you think it's is a great tool, history shows that there's numerous companies who had great EBIDTA's and went tits up anyway.)

That's why we use "rate of return" - because that's what investors ultimately are concerned about, not farcical estimates of profit.

Don't you like it when an accountant argues with an actuary over what's the best way to calculate revenues.
- Symba007

It's even funnier when a bunch of CPA's say "only a moron would think EBITA was the best way to value a company."

While all of you were in here talking CBA, this kid was getting his.

https://pbs.twimg.com/med...A8Rn-YLCUAIe9OH.jpg:large
- Travis Yost

My God, those M&M's are huge.

I don't know why the PA wants a 5 year deal. I could guess that the PA is expecting the League to rebound and revenue start to escalate again. I agree that the deal should be longer then 5 years. And I would expect the League to push for a longer deal.
- MJL

The NHLPA wants a five year deal because their proposal will not get to 50:50 in five years.

I know what I am, but what are you?

You're here (Not that I'm really surprised)

These numbers cited above are based on what expected revenue increases?..because the proposal sets a minimum cap limit. My arithmetic pegs this proposal as a NHLPA concession if, and only if, revenue increases are less than ~ 3.7%. Do your numbers match up?
- Wodanaz

The numbers in the deal are based on a percentage share. The proposal also changes the Cap payroll range from +8M/-8M to +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14. That's how they're going to have that minimum cap limit without affecting player's percentage if I understand it correctly.

The NHLPA wants a five year deal because their proposal will not get to 50:50 in five years.
- Wodanaz

Yes it will.

@TSNBobMcKenzie: A shade over 55 per cent in Year 1, a shade under 54 per cent in Year 2, 52 per cent in Year 3, and 50. 3 per cent in Year 4.


- Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:

- 2012/13: $ 182M
- 2013/14: $ 128M
- 2014/15: $ 72M
- 2015/16: $ 11M

There is no make whole payment in year 5. So the player's share is 50% in that year.

it's dissapointing when people cant just man up, be an adult and admit faults, or mistakes etc.
i dont understand feeling the need to argue incessantly when theyve been blatantly proven wrong over and over.

everyone's wrong sometimes. it happens.do they just not have the character to admit flaws?
i feel so embarrassed for people watching them continue to squirm, and semantic everyone to death

it's dissapointing when people cant just man up, be an adult and admit faults, or mistakes etc.
i dont understand feeling the need to argue incessantly when theyve been blatantly proven wrong over and over.

everyone's wrong sometimes. it happens.do they just not have the character to admit flaws?
i feel so embarrassed for people watching them continue to squirm, and semantic everyone to death
- hugefemale dog77

Your words hurt.

Ok fair enough... i know I don't have the info that you have, but I am wondering if this is their latest offer which really isn't very attractive to the owners. What were the previous 5 they made.... This looks more like a first offer than their 5 or 6. I think what is frustrating the simple fan like myself is, It doesn't appear the NHLPA has really put anything on paper... other than we agree "in principle to get to 50/50" That's like me telling my wife... I agree in principle to cleaning the bathroom daily.... but i won't tell you how I am going to get their or when i am going to start. Yet the NHLPA and those that are speaking in the media truly believe that they have actually negotiated. I think that is why the simple fan like myself was so pissed at Crosby's words to the media....
- TSTER

The PA has submitted previous proposals on certain parts of the negotiations, such as make whole. If I'm not mistaken, this is the first full comprehensive offer they've submitted that covered the entire spectrum. From HRR, contract issues, revenue sharing, pension plans, discipline, etc.

As far as the Media stuff. My opinion is to ignore the rhetoric, and focus on the process. The rhetoric just throws you off on wild goose chases. Following the process and ignoring the rest, shows you where things really are.

I'm just a guy on the internet, and I know this because I can read.
- MJL

Well thanks for being so blunt.
I'm not disputing your comments, was just curious as to the source of the vast knowledge you have shown in this matter.
I'd expect this info from insiders, rather than a regular poster.
I applaud your insight and knowledge, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just curious, thats all.
So please don't treat me as a troll by being a wienerhead.

They're based on the same revenue projections that the League used. The proposal also changes the Cap payroll range from +8M/-8M to +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14. That's how they're going to have that minimum cap limit without affecting player's percentage if I understand it correctly.
- MJL

Your words hurt.
- bloatedmosquito

u did it to yourself...

Well thanks for being so blunt.
I'm not disputing your comments, was just curious as to the source of the vast knowledge you have shown in this matter.
I'd expect this info from insiders, rather than a regular poster.
I applaud your insight and knowledge, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just curious, thats all.
So please don't treat me as a troll by being a wienerhead.
- sloppyseconds2

Wasn't my intention. I apologize if I offended you. I follow mostly the guys on TSN such as Dreger, McKenzie, and LeBrun. On Hockeybuzz, I think Travis Yost has been great in covering the lockout.