Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Larry Brooks: The NHLPA screwed itself
Larry is a lifelong Bettman detractor and union shill. So this shouldnt come as a surprise, but he hates everything to do with the new deal.
He is the only one i have read or heard who is taking this stance.
Quote:
The NHLPA bargained itself into stagnating wages for the next four-to-six-to-eight seasons essentially so the players could be in a lower tax bracket. Is that the way you negotiate your contract? The union is not only putting controls on the cap through the pandemic, but throughout the length of the CBA.
Well, let me tell you this about the players. This generation has made it more difficult for the next. This generation has turned the union into a star-driven association. There was evidence of that with the split of the PA take of the 2016 World Cup further solidified by this deal that works to the advantage of marquee players with expensive long-term contracts and big-money players on their final contracts.
I always love stories when they include the phrase about how much the teams have risen in value over the years. It has nothing to do with what players are paid. It only means something IF the owners decide to sell the team, and like any business the profit or loss belongs to the group who decided to lay out their money originally.
If the players are so concerned about the value of the teams and getting their fare share then lay out your own money and wait 10-20 years to cash out.
From my recollection, this is the first time the NHLPA actually got the W. They wanted something done about escrow and they got that...which means they will go above 50% revenue probably. All the other negotiations saw the NHLPA take a haircut
From my recollection, this is the first time the NHLPA actually got the W. They wanted something done about escrow and they got that...which means they will go above 50% revenue probably. All the other negotiations saw the NHLPA take a haircut
They still only get 50% in the long run, the escrow over 30% will just be deferred to later years
The silliest thing the players did was allow themselves to believe in a mirage about how a rising cap meant rising salaries, when increasing revenue has been the only thing that really matters.
The players have been too focused on trying to game the system to maximize their own slice of the pie in relation to their peers, instead of seeking other concessions that may have been more readily available.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
From my recollection, this is the first time the NHLPA actually got the W. They wanted something done about escrow and they got that...which means they will go above 50% revenue probably. All the other negotiations saw the NHLPA take a haircut
So attack the writer without actually reading it and pointing out anything? His most salient point is that the cap can only increase to a max of 84.5 million in 5 years. If that’s true it sounds like a great deal for the owners, and really bad deal for players and teams with mismanaged salary caps.
So the players are betting things will not get any better and banking on it, covid really scares them. Brooks could very well be correct.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flamenspiel For This Useful Post:
Regardless of what the cap is, the players are still guaranteed 50% of HRR. If they get overpaid, they lose their escrow money (which we know they hate). If they get underpaid, they get a bonus at the end of the season (which, I assume, they would love).
For the players, the problem is that if you signed a multiyear deal, not only does its value decrease relative to the other players in the league every time the cap goes up, but if the cap is going up at a rate that causes escrow to significantly rise as well, the actual take-home portion of a player's salary goes down every year as well.
By limiting the amount the cap can rise, a player on a long-term contract doesn't see his relative value drop so much over the term of his contract, and if league revenue increases at a rate that outpaces the rise in the cap, that player is able to actually reap some of those rewards by getting a bonus at the end of the year (or at least reduced escrow payments -- which still means more money in his pocket).
It doesn't make sense to let the cap increase by $5 million because that's what the formula says, if everyone knows that $4 million of that increase is basically going to go straight to escrow.
If the cap goes up to a level where a player can sign for an extra $1 million per year, but it also causes escrow to rise significantly, that player's extra $1 million isn't coming from his team's increased revenue, it's essentially being paid by his teammates.
----------
Also, the limitation of the increase to the cap is only in place until the owners are made good through the escrow payback plan. Once the escrow balance is zero, the cap can start to increase by larger amounts again.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to getbak For This Useful Post:
So attack the writer without actually reading it and pointing out anything? His most salient point is that the cap can only increase to a max of 84.5 million in 5 years. If that’s true it sounds like a great deal for the owners, and really bad deal for players and teams with mismanaged salary caps.
So the players are betting things will not get any better and banking on it, covid really scares them. Brooks could very well be correct.
The flip side is that the cap isn't going down this year, even though revenues will. So each side gets somewhat off-setting benefits.
I bet things will be just fine economically in the coming years, at least outside of Calgary. Just how they were after each crises in history. He might have a point about the NHLPA getting a bad deal, but to lose a year of salary from a lockout is just as bad, so that's a plus for the PA
The flip side is that the cap isn't going down this year, even though revenues will. So each side gets somewhat off-setting benefits.
Yes, and over the next few seasons, the players will almost-certainly be taking home more than 50% of HRR each year. The new formula will allow the players to effectively carry a balance on what they owe to the escrow account, rather than needing to be square at the end of every season under the old CBA.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
So attack the writer without actually reading it and pointing out anything? His most salient point is that the cap can only increase to a max of 84.5 million in 5 years. If that’s true it sounds like a great deal for the owners, and really bad deal for players and teams with mismanaged salary caps.
So the players are betting things will not get any better and banking on it, covid really scares them. Brooks could very well be correct.
How is it bad for the players? They get 50% of HRR regardless. If they make more than 50% combined, they have to pay escrow; if they make less than 50% combined, they receive equalization payments.
How is it bad for the players? They get 50% of HRR regardless. If they make more than 50% combined, they have to pay escrow; if they make less than 50% combined, they receive equalization payments.
In fact, every player that is under contract should want this to happen.
Let's say you are under contract for 3 more years at $5M (or whatever). If revenues are lower than projected next year, you get clawed back via escrow, and end up with less than $5M. But if revenues are higher, you get your $5M plus an equalization bonus.
The perfect scenario for players that are already under contract, and will be for a few years, is to have the cap NOT go up, but have revenues DO go up. That would result in those players earning more than their contract salary.
In fact, every player that is under contract should want this to happen.
Let's say you are under contract for 3 more years at $5M (or whatever). If revenues are lower than projected next year, you get clawed back via escrow, and end up with less than $5M. But if revenues are higher, you get your $5M plus an equalization bonus.
The perfect scenario for players that are already under contract, and will be for a few years, is to have the cap NOT go up, but have revenues DO go up. That would result in those players earning more than their contract salary.
That is how I feel too, so I'm not sure why the players fight for every last dime available when it just results in escrow, especially using the clause to artificially inflate the cap up to 5%.
Larry Brooks: The NHLPA screwed itself
