From what I understand that is something the have come close to agreeing too. So with that out of the way, contractual issues seem to be the focal point. Not sure why the players would ever agree to what the NHL is proposing. Not sure if I'm correct on this but with those limitations the players would also get less money, and by giving up 7% on HRR they are giving up even more money. I agree that contracts should have some sort way of eliminating the circumventing but NHL's way is very drastic.
- Boosinicka

The 7% loss of HRR would hurt them slightly in year 1. Assuming the low end revenue growth projections of 5% per year over the next 6 years are accurate, they would lose 2% the first year, but would actually be 3% higher than they were last season in just year 2 of the new CBA etc etc.

I'm all for the luxury tax.

The other crap, like extending the ELCs and stuff like that... I don't agree with the NHL there.

I trust 30 people who have proven themselves to be smart businessmen by acquiring enough wealth to purchase an NHL team, over 650 people, the majority of which never graduated college; when it comes to designing a successful business model. I'm not sure why people are avid in their hoping to avoid discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual preference, but so perfectly happy to discriminate based on income. Being rich doesn't make someone anymore untrustworthy, greedy, or evil than someone who is poor. But only one side in these negotiations have proven themselves to be competent business wise.
- Antilles

you must mean the NHLPA then

No, in my original post, I said "shut down the league"
- laughs2907

Here is what you said!

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=101952&page=5

oday @ 2:09 PM ET
~ Shut down the league.

~ Owners create the structure THEY want. (Current contracts will be honored).

~ Players who wish to play under that structure, can... Those who do not like it, feel free to find employment elsewhere.

~ The end.


I added "honor current contracts"...

Other than that, the lawyers can suck it. The owners can do whatever they want beyond that.

It's their business... Once current obligations (current contracts) have been honored, they can implement whatever system they want. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Right now, it's still pretty early in the game. It's not time for a drastic move like that... Yet.

You can't go to an immediate 50/50 revenue split and honor current contracts.
- MJL

With low-end revenue growth expected to be at 5% per year and the addition of a luxury tax, sure you can.

The 7% loss of HRR would hurt them slightly in year 1. Assuming the low end revenue growth projections of 5% per year over the next 6 years are accurate, they would lose 2% the first year, but would actually be 3% higher than they were last season in just year 2 of the new CBA etc etc.

I'm all for the luxury tax.

The other crap, like extending the ELCs and stuff like that... I don't agree with the NHL there.
- laughs2907

This is exactly where we are stuck in the negotiations, if you don't agree with it, and players don't either, then why so against the PA in all this?

And you admit you don't know it all, quite an objective approach to this over the subjective BS most are spewing fourth, helps also to have an understanding of how these things work rather than just trying to sort out what you have read in the news.
The owners should give the players their contractual rights in the CBA, let em have contracts be as long as they choose. Then the NHL should get together with all the owners and all sign a document agreeing amongst themselves that no team shall offer a contract longer than 5 years. Players get what they want, and owners get what they want. That issue is solved
- ruttager17

Which would probably amount to collusion, which is illegal.

Here is what you said!

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=101952&page=5

oday @ 2:09 PM ET
~ Shut down the league.

~ Owners create the structure THEY want. (Current contracts will be honored).

~ Players who wish to play under that structure, can... Those who do not like it, feel free to find employment elsewhere.

~ The end.


I added "honor current contracts"...

Other than that, the lawyers can suck it. The owners can do whatever they want beyond that.

It's their business... Once current obligations (current contracts) have been honored, they can implement whatever system they want. If you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Right now, it's still pretty early in the game. It's not time for a drastic move like that... Yet.
- MJL

Depends on how you interpret "shut down the league"

With low-end revenue growth expected to be at 5% per year and the addition of a luxury tax, sure you can.
- laughs2907

I haven't heard any talk of a luxury tax.

This is one of the issues I have with putting full faith in that owners require a better deal.

http://blogs.edmontonjour...ng-teams-that-lose-money/
- Boosinicka

but this isnt fact.

it's skewed in one direction and is quite clear about that.
"The county receives revenue sharing only if the Panthers organization hits a certain profit level"
and they're convienently the ones that are coming up with the disputed numbers.

not only are they unsure of which numbers are correct, he readily admits (after it got pointed out) at the end some clear omissions, misunderstanding the data and clear arithmetical errors
"the above piece at times confuses the financial data for the arena operating company with the financial data for Sunrise Sports and Entertainment, due to my misreading portions of the audit. That’s an important distinction to make, and one that I failed to make in my reading of the audit ".

Which would probably amount to collusion, which is illegal.
- MJL

hence the 3 laughy face emoticons following the comment. If i were two write the word sarcasm in quotes afterwards, that would make it too easy for ya...

And you admit you don't know it all, quite an objective approach to this over the subjective BS most are spewing fourth, helps also to have an understanding of how these things work rather than just trying to sort out what you have read in the news.
The owners should give the players their contractual rights in the CBA, let em have contracts be as long as they choose. Then the NHL should get together with all the owners and all sign a document agreeing amongst themselves that no team shall offer a contract longer than 5 years. Players get what they want, and owners get what they want. That issue is solved
- ruttager17

I like it.

Not according to all the experts you can't.
- MJL

5% increase in revenue growth + a luxury tax for going over the cap? Of course you can.

hence the 3 laughy face emoticons following the comment. If i were two write the word sarcasm in quotes afterwards, that would make it too easy for ya...
- ruttager17

Okay!

5% increase in revenue growth + a luxury tax for going over the cap? Of course you can.
- laughs2907

I missed that you said Luxury tax in my reply. I don't know what the numbers are there. Nor have I heard about any discussion taking place as far as a luxury tax is concerned in the negotiations.

This is exactly where we are stuck in the negotiations, if you don't agree with it, and players don't either, then why so against the PA in all this?
- Boosinicka

Maybe try pulling your head out of the players asses and looking at this thing from both perspectives. Your opinion and support for the players is one sided because you can't take a look at it through the owners eyes and you admit to not trusting billionaire business owners so your opinion is based on your discrimination and baseless stereotyping of the owners.

This is exactly where we are stuck in the negotiations, if you don't agree with it, and players don't either, then why so against the PA in all this?
- Boosinicka

Last I heard, they were not willing to go to 50/50 right away.

As far as contracts being honored... With the addition of a luxury tax and the low-end projections of a 5% revenue growth, that shouldn't even be an issue.

If the PA are willing to go to 50/50 right away, than the NHL has to take that.

I have much more respect for the NHL though... They're not acting like spoiled brats, insulting people/their employers ever chance they get.

you must mean the NHLPA then
- Boosinicka

Following the playbook of "demand what you want because you know the business better than the people running it" is what the union who just got Hostess to close down losing 18k people their jobs did, too. I don't think it's smart in either case.

but this isnt fact.

it's skewed in one direction and is quite clear about that

not only are they unsure of which numbers are correct, he readily admits (after it got pointed out) at the end some clear omissions, misunderstanding the data and clear arithmetical errors
- hugefemale dog77

It also states that the 2 bolded points are not swayed by these omissions.

That's ridiculous. Agreeing to go from 57% of revenue, down to 50% is certainly a concession. In fact it's a huge concession. Could be well over a Billion dollars.


If I'm the owner of a business then I want maximum profits for myself, not the employees. There is not a business in the real world that operates like the NHL does. The union is looking to get busted by their refusal to take the reduced profit margins. If I was an owner I would want an impasse so I could get rid of the union players and bring on my own group of players at a reasonable rate of pay. The players today take no risks financially. They provide a service and are well paid for it. It puzzles me how people on these forums look at it as if the players have the right to tell the owners how to run their business. Players like Ovechkin and others who threaten to remain in Russia should feel free to do so. It would not hurt my feelings if they didn't return. Bunch of Prima Donna's


The players don't act like they own the League. They act like a unified Union standing up for themselves. There hasn't been an agreement on how to get to 50/50. You cannot negotiate fairly by placing preconditions on the negotiations. This is a League that is nothing without the players. The players are far more then just employees.



The players didn't give a counter that is light years away. The real difference between the players proposal and the Owners is about 33M. The League is using numbers based on a what they think the possibility of lost revenue is going to be for this Season and future years. The players want to negotiate on a hypothetical full Season. The League is using the mirage of using the estimated percentage of lost revenue, to artificially inflate the difference between the two sides. And make it look bigger then it really is. But they use a 5% growth rate to come up with Make Whole.
- MJL

I missed that you said Luxury tax in my reply. I don't know what the numbers are there. Nor have I heard about any discussion taking place as far as a luxury tax is concerned in the negotiations.
- MJL

I was just putting my own spin on it, saying that it could be possible, under the right system. If a luxury tax isn't being considered, it should be. Reward the teams and the fans who support them, by allowing them to spend over the cap (to a certain degree), and everyone benefits.

It also states that the 2 bolded points are not swayed by these omissions.
- Boosinicka

And this part is key to understand

"this point is being missed by many readers. If the Panthers were acting as a drag on revenue, the 2005 lockout year should have been quite profitable for SSE; instead it was easily their worst fiscal year of the decade "

I was just putting my own spin on it, saying that it could be possible, under the right system. If a luxury tax isn't being considered, it should be. Reward the teams and the fans who support them, by allowing them to spend over the cap (to a certain degree), and everyone benefits.
- laughs2907

I haven't looked at how it would affect things. But I like the idea of a luxury tax. I'm sure there is going to parity arguments though.

It also states that the 2 bolded points are not swayed by these omissions.
- Boosinicka

you're just regurgitating a debate in another thread brought up by this link

point is, it's one writers opinion really. those numbers are disputed. certainly not cold hard data that the panthers are lying and cooking the books to look like they're losing money when in fact they aint.

the PA has access to the real numbers and if this was the case, fehr would be all over it.

And this part is key to understand

"this point is being missed by many readers. If the Panthers were acting as a drag on revenue, the 2005 lockout year should have been quite profitable for SSE; instead it was easily their worst fiscal year of the decade "
- MJL

no. i think it's you who happens to be missing the point.
far as i can tell most of the other posters have a clear understanding

you're just regurgitating a debate in another thread brought up by this link

point is, it's one writers opinion really. those numbers are disputed. certainly not cold hard data that the panthers are lying and cooking the books to look like they're losing money when in fact they aint.

the PA has access to the real numbers and if this was the case, fehr would be all over it.
- hugefemale dog77

It's not one writers opinion, it is based on numbers that are public record. I believe that there are definitely teams that are struggling. But the main point really is that Forbes isn't a reliable source.