There will be a strike

[dbr]

Speaking of war chests, the players are also due their escrow payment for 2011-12 in October.. Although it is probably a similar pittance when compared to their full year's income that $200m is compared to the $2.6b the league generated last year (if I remember correctly).

[Reefer2]

It would essentially mean that no owner is going to lose money if there is a season long lockout.

I don't think that is accurate.

200 mill is around 8 mill per team. For most teams that probably wont cover their non-salary overhead.

They still have to pay their Lease, coaching staff, business operations, training staff, hockey opp's etc.

I think the most profitable model for most teams is a short season + full playoff, I don't think missing a whole season under the current CBA makes much sense for many teams.

Thanks Pot , I was going to say the same thing. $200M is nothing for these owners.

[griz]

The players and the league are fighting over the money from the fans. They say the fans will come back no matter what. They ignore the negativity and disappointment a lost season would mean to the hardcore fans. In effect they poke the heart of hockey fans for profit. It reminds me of wolves arguing over which one of us to eat first.

It's too bad. I just wanted to watch my favorite team play hockey. Why do all these numbers and lawyers have to get in the way?

What if all NHL players made the same amount of money? What if a player's true reward for standing out amonst the other players was simply to create their legacy as an athlete? Heck we have athletes in the olympics that push themselves to their limits for far less money than even an entry level NHL contract.

[tantalum]

Player cost are $57 mil.

The league had what $3B in revenues and about $200 mil in league wide profits.

It leaves about $30 mil in other expenses per team for a normal season. The bulk of that is going to be due to travel and other day to day operations which in a lockout either don't exist or are reduced. We also don't know how much advertising money is guaranteed with the long term advertising deals (similar to how the NBC contract is guaranteed to the league). Yes they still need to employ the front office and scouting staff but the bulk of that will be covered by that NBC money. Some teams have leases etc of course but they also tend to have control over the arena for other events, for the purposes of a lockout owners will be willing to use other businesses around the arena to subsidize that aspect...something they aren't willing to do with player salaries for the long term (or even the lease long term but short term no problem).

Perhaps I was loose with my calculations...y'all caught me but the long of the short of it is, this war chest is similar in size to the last war chest except they didn't even need to squirrel away this money like last time. It takes away the pressure point the players thought they had with the TV contract. This is the profit loss breakdown from last season (in millions):

80 - 1
50 - 1
40 -1
20 - 3
10 - 2
0 - 9
-10 - 12
-20 - 1

A lockout isn't going to change things much for the majority of teams whereas the result of the lockout will likely reap bigger rewards for all. There are essentially 5 truly healthy teams. Profits of 0-9 mil on that size of investment is nothing.

[ukcanuck]

As I understand it, the league's proposal, among other things, would set the salary cap at about 50 million; while the players proposal sets it at about 69 million (?) Setting aside the peripheral issues of contract lengths, and free agency, etc. Wouldn't it be logical that the two sides split the difference setting the cap at 60 million and with a mechanism that divides hockey related profit at about 50/50? Moreover, Wouldn't it also seem logical that the two sides reach such an equatable solution just in the nick of time to lose any of the season in order not to fuck with cash flow and their position in the marketplace.. I mean sanity insists they were totally fucking lucky to come out of the last work stoppage unscathed it would be totally moronic to think that a second work stoppage would not set them all back in terms of marketshare...perhaps even so far back as to be unrecoverable....say hello research in motion
anyway I really have to wonder who is driving this boat, the captain of the titanic E Smith?

[coco_canuck]

The latest proposal by the owners should help talks gain some more traction.

@DarrenDreger
NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50%

@DarrenDreger
Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

A more in depth description of the talks can be found here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-proposes-new-deal-to-players-association-during-ongoing-labour-talks/article4504860/

I think we're inching closer to a deal, and the projected framework seems to be shaping itself.

The reasonable deal to be made has always been close to a 50/50 split that is brought in incrementally, and some sort of resolution in terms of contract length, somewhere in the 7-10 year range, and UFA, RFA status remaining unchanged.

Now they needs to iron out the revenue split percentages, but more importantly what qualifies as hockey related revenue (HRR).

The owners are showing more willingness to find common ground, but clearly, at $58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.

Now, this was just some minor movement, nothing major that suggests a deal is imminent, and a lockout may yet happen, but I really don't see the issues being terribly divisive, nor do I expect a prolonged work stoppage.

As I said months ago, a reasonable deal is there for the making, and as long as the power game doesn't get out of control, there shouldn't be a major disruption.

[FAN]

$58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.

Not without a salary roll-back.

[Boston Canucker]

The latest proposal by the owners should help talks gain some more traction.

....

I agree. We don't know all the details yet, but it seems to be a step in a better direction, interesting that the nhl seemed to use the PA's framework of 3 yrs set cap then back to a % system. I expect the PA will reject, as part of the negotiating process. Yes, 58 mill for next year would mean cutbacks, but it's a negotiating position, and I think a 50/50 split is what the long run aim is of the owners' anyway, players will probably eventually accept it, or something close to it. This negotiation feels very different than 04. I do think there'll be a lockout, but if the NHL's proposal is looking as it seems from reports, this tennis match seems to be on and they'll find a way to it, but probably not for a while. Jan 1 start, still sticking with my call...I'd love to be wrong, on the earlier side of course. We'll see what happens.

[coco_canuck]

$58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.

Not without a salary roll-back.

Well, the salary roll-back is simply hidden because the players would have to make major escrow payments, which would in effect be a salary roll-back.

The problem without having an up-front roll-back with a $14M drop in the salary cap from the current figure is the teams over the proposed cap having to unload salary.

Considering that more than half of the teams in the NHL currently have payrolls above $58M, that cap figure is simply unmanageable, and is nothing more than a negotiation point.

When a deal is negotiated, the cap for the up coming season will not be below $65M IMO.

I agree. We don't know all the details yet, but it seems to be a step in a better direction, interesting that the nhl seemed to use the PA's framework of 3 yrs set cap then back to a % system. I expect the PA will reject, as part of the negotiating process. Yes, 58 mill for next year would mean cutbacks, but it's a negotiating position, and I think a 50/50 split is what the long run aim is of the owners' anyway, players will probably eventually accept it, or something close to it. This negotiation feels very different than 04. I do think there'll be a lockout, but if the NHL's proposal is looking as it seems from reports, this tennis match seems to be on and they'll find a way to it, but probably not for a while. Jan 1 start, still sticking with my call...I'd love to be wrong, on the earlier side of course. We'll see what happens.

It would be an absolute waste if the lockout lasts past December.

For all the teams that save money in the first couple months of the season, just as many teams will lose out on significant revenue over that time.

The players have indicated they're willing to give in a bit, and as long as the owners don't go for the kill to reinforce their power-grip over the players, a deal shouldn't take that long to figure out.

[Boston Canucker]

It would be an absolute waste if the lockout lasts past December.

For all the teams that save money in the first couple months of the season, just as many teams will lose out on significant revenue over that time.

The players have indicated they're willing to give in a bit, and as long as the owners don't go for the kill to reinforce their power-grip over the players, a deal shouldn't take that long to figure out.

I agree, if they're close. Ideally, be great if they got it done asap. In reading up, I did read something about NHL redefining what counts as HRR, one source saying it could pull 400 mill out of HRR. Again, not sure the truth of that, but if so, then it makes the proposal more problematic..."yes, you can have half, but we've scooped out a bunch of the pie, enjoy!" then again, all subject to negotiation as well. I guess now that I'm on my third Bettman lockout as a fan (or close to one) I refuse to get suckered into being optimistic about an early start...be great to be wrong about that

[coco_canuck]

I agree, if they're close. Ideally, be great if they got it done asap. In reading up, I did read something about NHL redefining what counts as HRR, one source saying it could pull 400 mill out of HRR. Again, not sure the truth of that, but if so, then it makes the proposal more problematic..."yes, you can have half, but we've scooped out a bunch of the pie, enjoy!" then again, all subject to negotiation as well. I guess now that I'm on my third Bettman lockout as a fan (or close to one) I refuse to get suckered into being optimistic about an early start...be great to be wrong about that

I understand what you're saying, and it's not so much that I'm optimistic but rather that I don't see much of a need for either side to "stick it" to the other.

Rhetoric is rhetoric, and in the end it doesn't mean much when a deal is made.

The HRR is a long ways away from being figured out, but the initial framework for the future deal is shaping in the sense that the 50% number was brought in with a gradual reduction in the player share.

It's likely the players will counter with a higher percentage of the HRR and their definition of it.

The player's response and the league's reaction to that response will determine if we're in for a work stoppage.

If the PA and the NHL actually begin speaking the same language, and negotiate over a specific framework, then a deal shouldn't be a long way off. But if the players completely refuse this offer, then we're taking a step back.

[FAN]

$58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.

Not without a salary roll-back.

Well, the salary roll-back is simply hidden because the players would have to make major escrow payments, which would in effect be a salary roll-back.

The problem without having an up-front roll-back with a $14M drop in the salary cap from the current figure is the teams over the proposed cap having to unload salary.

Considering that more than half of the teams in the NHL currently have payrolls above $58M, that cap figure is simply unmanageable, and is nothing more than a negotiation point.

When a deal is negotiated, the cap for the up coming season will not be below $65M IMO.

Ya that's what I was referring to. Without an actual "salary rollback" the players' current cap hit will remain where they are which means most teams are above that $58M cap like you said. Maybe the NHL can forget about competitiveness and for the upcoming season keep the cap where it has been proposed but lower the cap floor, which would allow teams that can afford to spend more to spend but the teams that are really hurting to pay less in salaries.

[tantalum]

From what I've read they still aren't really speaking the same language. There are two types of linkage in the current CBA. One that links to give the players share and is controlled by the escrow mechanism and the linkage to revenues that sets the upper and lower cap limits.

From reading the bits and pieces of the proposal that seem to have come out, it seems to me that the league has not removed linkage on the players share. If they did there is no reason for the players to already be complaining that it will involve escrow...escrow is the linkage mechansim to ensure the split is as expected. In this case escrow would also be the salary rollback mechanism though the multi-year staged decrease will alleviate some of the harshness. To remove some of the burden on the escrow system and therefore reduction in actual players pay they are proposing to unlink the cap and force it artificially low the first three years.

This would be somewhat opposite to what was reported about the PAs offer where they unlinked the players share for the first three years and tried to artificially slow salary growth compared to anticipated revenues and then linked things back in the 4th year at a level the NHL already isn't happy with.

It's hard to say as there has been some really really sloppy reporting in all of this.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

If there is a strike, what happens to players who have like 1 year left on their deals? Burr and Edler come to mind. If this whole season is lost, will Burr and Edler automatically become UFAs in the 13-14 season?

[Hockey Widow]

If there is a strike, what happens to players who have like 1 year left on their deals? Burr and Edler come to mind. If this whole season is lost, will Burr and Edler automatically become UFAs in the 13-14 season?

I guarantee there will not be a strike. A lockout on the other hand....