Location: Kessel = Selanne - Adam French Joined: 07.01.2006
Dec 10 @ 11:11 AM ET
No it's not. The 57% the players made in revenue last year actually happened. - MJL
last year, correct. And the owners will pay existing contracts but they don't require to pay 57% this year or next year or the years after that plus growth.
The owners are not taking anything away.
The NHLPA wanted a flat $46M cap for the life of the previous CBA. It was Bettman and the owners who wanted the cap linked to revenues - uf1910
So are you saying that Bettman gave to the players? Wow, who would have known. He sacrificed Billions of dollars for the players.
So that means the players would still be at 46M cap. If everyone spent to the cap, it would mean 41% of revenues today . Would likely be less since most teams wouldn't spend to the cap.....
Basically the players should treat Bettman as a savior to their wallet?
How do you know I didn't gain 10 pounds last week from eating cheese?
Once again, you are missing some pretty simple concepts.
Not realizing potential income is not the same as losing income.
You can argue this until you are blue in the face. You will still be wrong.
Want to argue the players are giving up potential income by coming down from 57% to 50%? Terrific. You have the Atomic Wedgie seal of approval.
Don't say they are losing money. It's factually incorrect.
If you don't believe me, ask an accountant. - Atomic Wedgie
The only reason it is currently factually incorrect, is that it hasn't happened yet. Ask the same accountant if it will happen. And what do you think that Accountant would say?
Both sides are using projections in the future. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the players agreeing to go from 57% of revenue, to 50% of revenue, isn't giving a concession to the Owners. But it certainly is, regardless of how you want to spin it.
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Dec 10 @ 11:15 AM ET
So are you saying that Bettman gave to the players? Wow, who would have known. He sacrificed Billions of dollars for the players.
So that means the players would still be at 46M cap. If everyone spent to the cap, it would mean 41% of revenues today . Would likely be less since most teams wouldn't spend to the cap.....
Basically the players should treat Bettman as a savior to their wallet? - l3ig_l2ecl
It's the scary, hilarious, bizarre thing.
Look at what the NHLPA proposed to the NHL before the last lockout.
The NHL laughed at it.
If the NHL had agreed to it, they would have made out like bandits.
And then go look at the original offer from the NHL to the NHLPA.
The NHLPA was deeply insulted by it.
In the end, they signed a deal that was worse, and sacrificed a year of earnings to do so.
last year, correct. And the owners will pay existing contracts but they don't require to pay 57% this year or next year or the years after that plus growth.
The owners are not taking anything away. - Oilhab
Sure they are! You think the last deal that the Owners proposed pays contracts in full? Not even close. And no matter how you spin it. 50% of future revenue is less then 57% of it. And that is taking away from the players.
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Dec 10 @ 11:18 AM ET
The only reason it is currently factually incorrect, is that it hasn't happened yet. Ask the same accountant if it will happen. And what do you think that Accountant would say?
Both sides are using projections in the future. You can argue until you're blue in the face that the players agreeing to go from 57% of revenue, to 50% of revenue, isn't giving a concession to the Owners. But it certainly is, regardless of how you want to spin it. - MJL
He'd say that since there is no collective bargaining agreement in place that guarantees the players 57% of revenues next year, you can't say that they are going to make it.
Thanks for the lob.
But sure, if you want to say that the players are making a concession by dropping to 50%, sure, I don't have a problem with that. Keep saying it.
Don't say they are losing money. That's factually incorrect.
Back to the kids' table, and eat your brussel sprouts. - Atomic Wedgie
No it was the NHL who asked and wanted the floor as a fixed dollar amount below the cap rather than the floor being a % amount below the cap.
As for the NHLPA insisting on the floor, yes you are correct but that was not my point. It was the NHL that insisted upon the floor being a FLAT $16M below the cap so in essence as revenues rose the floor actually rose at a higher rate of revenues then the cap did.
As for your kids table comment, well back at ya as that was uncalled for and served no purpose
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Dec 10 @ 11:22 AM ET
No it was the NHL who asked and wanted the floor as a fixed dollar amount below the cap rather than the floor being a % amount below the cap. As for the NHLPA insisting on the floor, yes you are correct but that was not my point. It was the NHL that insisted upon the floor being a FLAT $16M below the cap so in essence as revenues rose the floor actually rose at a higher rate of revenues then the cap did.
As for your kids table comment, well back at ya as that was uncalled for and served no purpose - uf1910
Please go back and find where I stated that the NHL wanted a salary cap as either a % or fixed amount.
Hint: don't waste your time, I never did.
If you want to puff up your chest and call me wrong on something I never said, don't be hurt when I extend the same amount of attitude to you when correcting your mistakes.
Sure they are! You think the last deal that the Owners proposed pays contracts in full? Not even close. And no matter how you spin it. 50% of future revenue is less then 57% of it. And that is taking away from the players. - MJL
But they do pay in full, because contracts this year are tied to 3.3bil. If there's an increase of 7% that Fehr stated, they would be at 1.88bil in 3 years just like they are now. With the make whole of 300mil, they would be covered. They might have to take a 70mil cut in escrows in year 2, So the players are only giving 70mil. However, you have to consider that a lot of players will renew their contracts this summer or the next. So they wont lose money, just resign for less. So the ones that have contracts with 3+ years remaining, will likely not even have to pay escrows at all.
In the end, if players are "losing" money, it's no on their current contract, it's on their future contract, which in the end doesn't count as losing money as it's not even their right now.
He'd say that since there is no collective bargaining agreement in place that guarantees the players 57% of revenues next year, you can't say that they are going to make it.
Thanks for the lob.
But sure, if you want to say that the players are making a concession by dropping to 50%, sure, I don't have a problem with that. Keep saying it.
Don't say they are losing money. That's factually incorrect.
mmmmkay? - Atomic Wedgie
Would saying that they are going to be losing money in the future, be more acceptable to you? Because I'm really concerned about what is acceptable to you!
Please go back and find where I stated that the NHL wanted a salary cap as either a % or fixed amount.
Hint: don't waste your time, I never did.
If you want to puff up your chest and call me wrong on something I never said, don't be hurt when I extend the same amount of attitude to you when correcting your mistakes.
Cool? - Atomic Wedgie
Ok well then my bad, I thought it was part of your argument which is why I BOLDED the part about Phx. But I wasn't wrong either as what I was pointing out was factually correct. We were arguing 2 different points that while connected were not the same.
I wasn't puffing out anything. You got bent out of shape and threw jabs my way that were uncalled for. Beyond that its fairly simple as explained above
Location: The centre of the hockey universe Joined: 07.31.2006
Dec 10 @ 11:28 AM ET
Would saying that they are going to be losing money in the future, be more acceptable to you? Because I'm really concerned about what is acceptable to you! - MJL
No, it would still be factually incorrect.
They are not realizing potential earnings, if the revenue sharing model had remained at 57%. FACT.
Losing Money. FALSE.
And here's the hilarious thing; if you didn't care about what people thought, why are you dedicating 80 hours a week trying to win these arguments?
But they do pay in full, because contracts this year are tied to 3.3bil. If get a increase of 7% that Fehr stated, they would be at 1.88bil in 3 years just like they are now. With the make whole of 300mil, they would be covered. They might have to take a 70mil cut in escrows in year 2, So the players are only giving 70mil. However, you have to consider that a lot of players will renew their contracts this summer or the next. So they wont lose money, just resign for less. So the ones that have contracts with 3+ years remaining, will likely not even have to pay escrows at all.
In the end, if players are "losing" money, it's no on their current contract, it's on their future contract, which in the end doesn't count as losing money as it's not even their right now. - l3ig_l2ecl
Not even close. According to the PA, it would take well over 500M in Make Whole payments to honor player contracts in full.
I love that! In the end it doesn't count as losing money because it's not their right now. That's classic!
. Would likely be less since most teams wouldn't spend to the cap.....
