Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 07-25-2017, 12:20 AM   #21
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Personally I think there will be a lost season as the players are really unhappy. I don't think minor tweaks will be enough.
Why are people always attacking the players? Every work stoppage we've seen in the NHL for the past 3 decades have been a result of the owners deciding to lock the players out of work, not the players striking.

The NHL knows the owners have very little leverage in regular salary negotiations because it's a talent-based business, much like Hospitals, Universities, and other forms of the entertainment industry. They choose lockouts because it makes for easier long-term negotiations when 50% of the players can't afford to lose pay.

Even if the players were happy, you have to question if the league is happy? Because if they're not, that's more likely to be a driver of a work stoppage than the players happiness.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 07:15 AM   #22
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Radio View Post
I am of the thinking that a player with a NTC that asks or demands to be traded, that NTC should be null and void and you should be able to trade him wherever you want.

Are NTC and the like even part of the CBA or is that just an independent contractual thing?
The Standard Player's Contract is governed by the CBA, and so are NTCs/NMCs.

Also, I'll reverse the argument I make with the Olympic issue for you guys: If you want to shorten maximum contract length and/or cripple the value of NTC/NMCs, please explain what you plan to give up in return from the owners' side that the players would go for. And while "Olympics" is the easy answer, we both already know that they won't trade contract rights for going to the Games every four years.
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 07:57 AM   #23
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeoff View Post
I can't think of how the NHL could pull off linking salaries to hockey related revenue without escrow.
Players just get paid what their contract says, then at the end of the season after it's all calculated they get another cheque for the balance if the league owes players, or a letter and have to pay the league part of their salary back in one lump sum if the players owe the league. Seems like that would be WAY more unpopular than escrow. Hold back paycheques the next year if they don't pay.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 07:57 AM   #24
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Why are people always attacking the players? Every work stoppage we've seen in the NHL for the past 3 decades have been a result of the owners deciding to lock the players out of work, not the players striking.

The NHL knows the owners have very little leverage in regular salary negotiations because it's a talent-based business, much like Hospitals, Universities, and other forms of the entertainment industry. They choose lockouts because it makes for easier long-term negotiations when 50% of the players can't afford to lose pay.

Even if the players were happy, you have to question if the league is happy? Because if they're not, that's more likely to be a driver of a work stoppage than the players happiness.
Not sure anyone is attacking the players.

Just pointing out that there isn't a whole lot to fight for in a salaried cap system that is indexed. There just isn't a list of gains that they could possibly find in a prolonged work stoppage that would replace the lost season for the average player.

that's not an attack ... it's just a reference to the fact that the average NHL career is what 7 years long? Why would anyone sacrifice 14% of that for a principle and a minor one at that.
Bingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 07:58 AM   #25
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Players just get paid what their contract says, then at the end of the season after it's all calculated they get another cheque for the balance if the league owes players, or a letter and have to pay the league part of their salary back in one lump sum if the players owe the league. Seems like that would be WAY more unpopular than escrow. Hold back paycheques the next year if they don't pay.
I think it's done the way it's done because it's easier to get 31 institutions to rectify an imbalance then 713 individuals. Think of the accounts receivable nightmares for the teams!
Bingo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 08:05 AM   #26
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo View Post
I think it's done the way it's done because it's easier to get 31 institutions to rectify an imbalance then 713 individuals. Think of the accounts receivable nightmares for the teams!
Oh for sure, just was the alternative I could immediately think of. I'm with you, players should just suck it up it works out the same in the end, complaining about the process just seems so whiny and makes them look ignorant.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 08:07 AM   #27
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

I wonder if they just instituted 20 40 and 60 game points for a general revenue indication that they could give the money back sooner with the final cheque being much less than the previous three.

If gate receipts are up in mid November, they put in a formula that returns x to the players. Trend continues into January and they do the same. Mid March gets them another one as the trend hasn't been lost.

Then it's just peanuts at the end either way.
Bingo is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bingo For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 08:45 AM   #28
Resolute 14
In the Sin Bin
 
Resolute 14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dying4acup View Post
Easiest way to get rid of escrow completely is to make what is now the midpoint becoming the cap. Zero escrow, and in fact players would all get a bonus cheque at seasons end depending on how well the league did (like most employees in the world).

Side bonus: Oilers will be f$&ked.
90% of the teams in the league would be f$&ked if you made that move in one shot. The easiest solution is to slide it over a period of time. This year, 50% HRR represents the mid-point between the cap and floor. Next year, push it to 60% of the difference between cap and floor. The year after, 70%. The year after, 80%. It would have two impacts: First, escrow would decline every year. Second: the cap itself would stagnate for a short period.

The problem is that the players coming up for renewal on their contracts would hate that stall on the cap as well, even though the difference would be getting 90% of their $7 million contract vs. 80% of their $8 million contract.
Resolute 14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 08:59 AM   #29
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dying4acup View Post
Easiest way to get rid of escrow completely is to make what is now the midpoint becoming the cap. Zero escrow, and in fact players would all get a bonus cheque at seasons end depending on how well the league did (like most employees in the world).

Side bonus: Oilers will be f$&ked.
Which world are you speaking of? I can assure you that this is not the case for the majority of employees on this planet.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:04 AM   #30
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo View Post
I wonder if they just instituted 20 40 and 60 game points for a general revenue indication that they could give the money back sooner with the final cheque being much less than the previous three.

If gate receipts are up in mid November, they put in a formula that returns x to the players. Trend continues into January and they do the same. Mid March gets them another one as the trend hasn't been lost.

Then it's just peanuts at the end either way.
That's just treating the symptom and not the disease.

I think the better solution would be lowering the amount of escrow removed down to a significantly smaller % and fixing the issues that are making it high.

LTIR Exemption: Get rid of it. No more getting to exceed the cap because you have an "allergy for your equipment".

Floor - Midpoint - Ceiling: Install a luxury tax that dings teams who pay in the upper half/third of the range. Proceeds go to the bottom 10 teams with the lowest revenue.

Contract $ variance: Get rid of it, your salary is your cap hit, your cap hit is your salary.

Escalator: Get rid of it.

Last edited by Parallex; 07-25-2017 at 09:10 AM.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:07 AM   #31
mrkajz44
First Line Centre
 
mrkajz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
Exp:
Default

Every time escrow gets brought up in puts a sour taste in my mouth. Pretty much 100% of all employees deal with escrow - the taxes withheld off every paycheque. Then at the end of the year, each person does a reconciliation to see if they paid too much, or not enough. I don't understand why the players make such a stink about the escrow when its the only reasonable way to ensure HRR is split properly.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
mrkajz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mrkajz44 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 09:07 AM   #32
Bingo
Owner
 
Bingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
That's just treating the symptom and not the disease.
I think the disease is players don't want a % of their money retained by the league for a 8 months.

So I'm treating that specifically, not the symptom. If a season is up in attendance you extrapolate the risk of that not continuing in an earlier adjustment to the players getting them a percentage of their money back.
Bingo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:31 AM   #33
Matt Reeeeead
Scoring Winger
 
Matt Reeeeead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Exp:
Default

I think the problem with escrow at the moment is simply that league revenues have not increased as much as they wanted.

I think a lot of it has to do with the weakened CAD dollar. Teams like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, EDM, etc. have severely understated HRR compared to where the dollar was at the time of the last agreement. Had the dollar stayed relatively close, the quality of these normally top, top revenue teams would be worth much more and close some of the escrow gap.

Ultimately, they have to keep using the inflator to ensure that past contracts (ie. Toews/Kane) aren't over inflated compared to the rest of the league. The inflator dilutes these contracts through escrow and opens up room for other players to sign for more meaningful dollars (ie. spread the wealth).

If league revenues can start increasing at a rate higher than the inflator (which is what was supposed to happen), the escrow percentage would start decreasing. Obviously the players dont like the escrow since it dilutes their salary, but what choice is there? The 50/50 split is a pretty good deal for both sides, but a league so dependent on the CAD dollar is going to go through peaks and valleys.
Matt Reeeeead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:36 AM   #34
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo View Post
I think the disease is players don't want a % of their money retained by the league for a 8 months.
I think they don't want a % of their money retained by the league period and I think they dislike the % they get back. That's a necessary evil with the cap but I think that you can lower that down to a small enough level that they won't mind. The disease is that management is habitually exceeding the 50% mark that was agreed upon with a bunch of "loopholes".

Players should get all of their escrow back, that they don't is a signal of larger issues.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:42 AM   #35
iggy_oi
Franchise Player
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44 View Post
Every time escrow gets brought up in puts a sour taste in my mouth. Pretty much 100% of all employees deal with escrow - the taxes withheld off every paycheque. Then at the end of the year, each person does a reconciliation to see if they paid too much, or not enough. I don't understand why the players make such a stink about the escrow when its the only reasonable way to ensure HRR is split properly.
So then by your logic the players are paying 2 escrows.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 09:54 AM   #36
Matt Reeeeead
Scoring Winger
 
Matt Reeeeead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
I think they don't want a % of their money retained by the league period and I think they dislike the % they get back. That's a necessary evil with the cap but I think that you can lower that down to a small enough level that they won't mind. The disease is that management is habitually exceeding the 50% mark that was agreed upon with a bunch of "loopholes".

Players should get all of their escrow back, that they don't is a signal of larger issues.
Well, for one thing, the players are happily choosing to use the escalator, which then inflates the escrow percentage.

They can't have it both ways. They signed a deal, 50/50 league revenues.

If they want more cash in their pockets, then the league needs to start generating more cash.
Matt Reeeeead is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Matt Reeeeead For This Useful Post:
Old 07-25-2017, 09:56 AM   #37
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrkajz44 View Post
Pretty much 100% of all employees deal with escrow - the taxes withheld off every paycheque.
... and no EVER complains about taxes and would never dislike getting an additional tax for which they receive literally no benefit (in the form of public services).
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 10:00 AM   #38
Parallex
I believe in the Jays.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead View Post
Well, for one thing, the players are happily choosing to use the escalator, which then inflates the escrow percentage.

They can't have it both ways. They signed a deal, 50/50 league revenues.

If they want more cash in their pockets, then the league needs to start generating more cash.
Which is why the escalator should be one of the things that go. I'm not saying they collectively should get more then the 50% they agreed to, I'm saying the league should take more care to ensure their members (AKA The Owners) aren't doling out more then that 50% initially so that the players can get what they individually negotiated for themselves with less clawback.
Parallex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 10:21 AM   #39
MarkGio
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parallex View Post
That's just treating the symptom and not the disease.

I think the better solution would be lowering the amount of escrow removed down to a significantly smaller % and fixing the issues that are making it high.

LTIR Exemption: Get rid of it. No more getting to exceed the cap because you have an "allergy for your equipment".

Floor - Midpoint - Ceiling: Install a luxury tax that dings teams who pay in the upper half/third of the range. Proceeds go to the bottom 10 teams with the lowest revenue.

Contract $ variance: Get rid of it, your salary is your cap hit, your cap hit is your salary.

Escalator: Get rid of it.
I don't mind LTIR, but I think it shouldn't be the full amount of salary. I think it should be capped to 975K or whatever an ELC max is. That way a team can replace the LTIR contract with someone. I mean, injuries do happen in hockey.

I also don't care for the luxury tax system. Teams can inflate franchise values and stay afloat without any effort to compete.

I also like the contract variance because it's given some poor teams financial flexibility, such as Arizona last year with the Datsuk, and Pronger. Without that variance, some teams are essentially stuck with their bad contracts.

Furthermore, rebuilding teams would be in trouble to get all their prime players under the cap if there was no variance. Imagine the Flames trying to build a Cup winner while Monahan, Gaudreau, Brodie, Hamilton, etc are all in their prime years, getting paid prime-year money. They would exceed the cap.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 10:38 AM   #40
Fighting Banana Slug
#1 Goaltender
 
Fighting Banana Slug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The escrow issue doesn't seem like a hill to die one for me. Unless they want to base the 50/50 split on historical revenues (last year), I don't see how they avoid it.

If they want to really pick a fight, I would imagine it would be to raise the split to 55% or something, or otherwise revise the HRR to include a portion of expansion fees, for example. I can't imagine the owners giving in to that type of demand.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Fighting Banana Slug is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:53 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021