tantalum wrote:Just running some numbers on the last proposal from the owners.
Worst case scenario for PA:
-offer taken as is
-no revenue growth over the term of the deal
-using a "effective" share of HRR = share offereed - 3% to account for changes in HRR (which IMO are logical and understandable)
-average player salary calculated based on 700 players
Year - HRR - Offered %age - Effective %age - total salary pool - ave player salary
0 - 3300 - 57.00% - 57.00% - 1881 - 2.69
1 - 3300 - 51.60% - 48.60% - 1604 - 2.29
2 - 3300 - 50.50% - 47.50% - 1568 - 2.24
3 - 3300 - 49.60% - 46.60% - 1538 - 2.20
4 - 3300 - 50.00% - 47.00% - 1551 - 2.22
5 - 3300 - 50.00% - 47.00% - 1551 - 2.22
6 - 3300 - 50.00% - 47.00% - 1551 - 2.22
Really I don't really believe this even an honest worst case scenario for the PA as I don't think it's likely revenue will stay flat over the term of the deal. It's a worst worst worst worst worst case scenario. And it doesn't even look bad! (keep in mind the player ave salary would include the beneifts etc that currently get put into the players share).
So what could happen if the players sat down and negotiated on that offer?
I call this a likely scenario:
-PA negotiates the %age numbers up a touch realising the numbers above are a good and fair starting point
-PA negotiated the changes to HRR and gets an increased share of playoff revenues, maybe relocation and expansion fees. Effectively they move the "3%" reduction for the change in definition to ~1.5%.
-revenue grows at 5% year on year. I could have use the 7% number the PA used to try to make their offer look like something it wasn't but I'm taking a more moderate approach.
year - HRR - offered %age - effective %age - salary pool - ave salary
0 - 3300 - 57.00% - 57.00% - 1881 - 2.68
1 - 3465 - 53.00% - 51.50% - 1784 - 2.55
2 - 3638 - 51.50% - 50.00% - 1819 - 2.60
3 - 3820 - 50.00% - 48.50% - 1853 - 2.65
4 - 4011 - 51.00% - 49.50% - 1985 - 2.84
5 - 4211 - 51.00% - 49.50% - 2085 - 2.98
6 - 4422 - 51.00% - 49.50% - 2189 - 3.13
Under this likely scenario the players would end up taking an immediate reduction of about 5%. Not that much and more than fair. Yes it increases escrow holding somewhat but if revenuees outpace 5% they will get most of that increased escrow withholdings back. If, for example, NHL revenue increase by 10% the first year the players have no drop in total salary pool compared to this past year which is what Fehr said they want. They can even negotiate in some potential percentage escalators when revenues reach a certain point (say at $4 bill the 51% moves to 52%).
A 5% reduction in salary that will be smaller than the lost money if the players miss a quarter of the season.
Now under this system they can then start to discuss how to do revenue sharing. I still think my idea I proposed way back when is workable. A luxury tax under a linked hard cap system. For the sake of argument take the ceiling as $60 mil, the midpoint at $50 mil and floor at $40 mil (these are determined by calculation based on the revenues). For every dollar a team spends above the midpoint they pay a 1:1 luxury tax which goes into the revenue sharing pool (or perhaps for the first $5 mil over the midpoint it's 1:1 and 2:1 after that...structure it whichever way). BUt you don't get to have those discussions until the fundamental system of players share is determined....linked or not.
I fail to see why the players decided to walk away from negotiating on what the league offered which is indeed a fair starting point. Revenue sharing is the argument the PA are using along with rollbacks/increased escrow but the reality is they walked away because they don't want to be linked to HRR. They can get a fair and reasonable deal under the framework the NHL offered with nothing more than negotiation. And given the NHL I think put forth something that is pretty darn reasonable as a starting point to negotiation this week I don't expect they will do much more to convince the players to come back to the table.
personally until the league includes revenue sharing amongst themselves as a sign of good faith that they are truly interested in the welfare of the entire league, teams, fans and players instead of trying to save the bottom teams on the backs of the players they can shred any proposal over their cornflakes and tuck right in.
why would any sane negotiator accept anything Bettman wants, anyone can see where this is going and what the next CBA will look like if they accepted anything like this proposal now.
The worst thing the players ever did was accept the salary cap last time. You and I gotta pay 300 bucks a tickets to watch Canucks and the team can't keep Luongo and Schneider and we can't sign Doan or we lose Erhoff because of a salary cap that keeps teams in places nobody gives a fuck about?
if it was up to me we would be seeing an honest to god strike, an alternate players league, and a mass exodus to Europe and the NHL can go fuck itself until it comes to the table with only one agenda.
-save the game for the fans