CBA Agreement Reached

[Deebo]

From Katie Baker over at Grantland:

$300 million of "make whole" payments from owners to honor existing contracts, and a salary cap for the upcoming 2013-14 season of $64.3 million (the same as what the cap was last year; there's also an agreement that future cap levels cannot fall lower than that). Each team will get two "compliance buyouts" in order to help with the adjustment to the new lower cap, so giddyup.

That's something.

So the PA won on that hill, I guess.  I assume they didn't get their ask from back in December of having their share of revenue in total $ not drop below what it was in the previous year. 

So they get their cap number (almost) but if revenues decline they still end up giving back in escrow. 

I think it's about teams not having to move players in the case of the cap number going down for the PA.

 

[bustaheims]

Don't worry, I'm sure in 8 years we'll be hearing how the deal was "more fair" to the players than expected.

When it's all said and done, the agents will find a way to maximize the potential benefits for the players. That is, after all, their job. Of course, if this deal does actually help create a healthier league, everyone wins.

 

[Frank E]

Does anyone know if the maximum cap figure for 1 guy rule got into this deal as well?

 

[Kin]

Does anyone know if the maximum cap figure for 1 guy rule got into this deal as well?

Being as nothing's been said I'm assuming it's as is.

 

[bustaheims]

Does anyone know if the maximum cap figure for 1 guy rule got into this deal as well?

I haven't seen it reported either way, but I have to believe the league would have pushed to at least stick with it as is.

 

[Kin]

Of course, if this deal does actually help create a healthier league, everyone wins.

Except, of course, the taxpayers in both countries who prop up this crooked business model.

 

[bustaheims]

Except, of course, the taxpayers in both countries who prop up this crooked business model.

Well, sure, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

 

[cw]

The players win, if it turns out, is going to be the direct benefit pension.

It would appear so. They managed to mitigate the damage in some other areas (at least, in comparison to the original proposals) and won a few smaller things, but, the owners "won" on what most pundits felt were their biggest wants.

According to links at HF,
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1317097
Pension
Switched to Defined Benefit Plan, paid for out of NHLPA share. Any losses from fund will be covered by NHL share.
...
Updated for pension plan adjustments, per Brandon Worley of SBNation.

So that's a pretty limited 'win' for the players as they're paying the lion's share of this defined benefit plan.

The players gave up $800 mil roughly in salary during this lockout - that's money gone forever. By the numbers, financially, the owners pretty much clobbered them and the $800 mil given up by the players in salaries didn't deliver an additional $800 mil in concessions from where they realistically were in September in my opinion.

On another point:
https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288315357943443456
Another emerging detail from new CBA: The floor will be at 15% below the midpoint, not exactly $16-million below the cap. A good change.

That is a good change in theory though I reserve judgment on how meaningful it will be until I see some actual numbers. The concept to do it via percentage rather than a fixed $16 mil gap amount is a good one and fairer/helpful for the small market teams without materially affecting competitive balance much in my opinion. To me, this was one of the key flaws in the last deal. But again, I think we need to see the formula with actual numbers before we can conclude too much yet. It's encouraging at this point because they provide an allowable range of between $16 and $28 mil so it can only improve over where it was.

 

[Kin]

Except, of course, the taxpayers in both countries who prop up this crooked business model.

Well, sure, but that's an entirely separate discussion.

I really don't think it is. I think it's the unspoken elephant in the room that undercuts the idea that we should want unprofitable teams to continue to exist.

 

[Kin]

The players gave up $800 mil roughly in salary during this lockout - that's money gone forever.

How do you arrive at 800 million?

 

[bustaheims]

mirtle: Here's how salary cap will function in this CBA: It will be 15% above the midpoint, to a minimum of $8-million and maximum of $14-million.

 

[dappleganger]

The players gave up $800 mil roughly in salary during this lockout - that's money gone forever.

How do you arrive at 800 million?

I think this is what he's referring to: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/clock/

 

[Kin]

The players gave up $800 mil roughly in salary during this lockout - that's money gone forever.

How do you arrive at 800 million?

I think this is what he's referring to: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/clock/

I still don't see how they arrive at that number.

 

[cw]

The players gave up $800 mil roughly in salary during this lockout - that's money gone forever.

How do you arrive at 800 million?

I think this is what he's referring to: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lockout/clock/

I still don't see how they arrive at that number.

That $800 mil number was in a media headline.

Lockout salaries lost calculation:
$3.3 bil revenue for 2012 + 6% typical revenue growth x 50% for players x 34 of 82 games lost = $725 mil lost in salaries

plus:
- no or significantly reduced preseason revenue
- no all star game revenue ($ to players pension)
- no New Year's Day game special revenue
- punitive clauses in advertisers/braodcasters  contracts for lockout
- lost of merchandising/league revenue due to lockout (ie poll says 75% of hockey fans to spend less on hockey merchandising than they otherwise would have due to lockout)

- all the above effect hockey related/player related revenues

So $800 mil is just a rough estimate of what the players gave up in salary to drag the lockout out. I don't see anywhere close to $800 mil in what they achieved/"won back" since September. It reminds me of Aesop's fable about the dog with the bone looking in the water at his reflection with the difference being the portion of the bone lost was worth hundreds of million$.

The fans, the game, the owners and the players all lost in this game of greed. The players just lost more than the others financially in my opinion. It was a dumb game for them to play.

 

[Kin]

Lockout salaries lost calculation:
$3.3 bil revenue for 2012 + 6% typical revenue growth x 50% for players x 34 of 82 games lost = $725 mil lost in salaries

plus:
- no or significantly reduced preseason revenue
- no all star game revenue ($ to players pension)
- no New Year's Day game special revenue
- punitive clauses in advertisers/braodcasters  contracts for lockout
- lost of merchandising/league revenue due to lockout (ie poll says 75% of hockey fans to spend less on hockey merchandising than they otherwise would have due to lockout)

- all the above effect hockey related/player related revenues

Yeah, but a significant chunk of those revenues are generated in the playoffs, no?

 

[Deebo]

Another gain for the players per Brian Lawton, performance bonuses won't be counted to help clubs get to the salary floor.

Also, NHL teams can't walk away from arbitration awards under 3.5 M and players waiting for club-elected salary arbitration can now sign offer sheets.

Those are some nice gains for the players IMO.

 

[bustaheims]

capgeek: Under the new CBA, teams can retain salary/cap hit in a trade. Conditions to follow. #NHL

capgeek: Teams can retain salary/cap hit for up to three SPCs, to a maximum aggregate cap hit of 15 per cent of upper limit. #NHL

capgeek: Up to 50% of SPC can be retained in trade. An SPC can be traded twice with salary/cap hit retained. #NHL

 

[cw]

Lockout salaries lost calculation:
$3.3 bil revenue for 2012 + 6% typical revenue growth x 50% for players x 34 of 82 games lost = $725 mil lost in salaries

plus:
- no or significantly reduced preseason revenue
- no all star game revenue ($ to players pension)
- no New Year's Day game special revenue
- punitive clauses in advertisers/braodcasters  contracts for lockout
- lost of merchandising/league revenue due to lockout (ie poll says 75% of hockey fans to spend less on hockey merchandising than they otherwise would have due to lockout)

- all the above effect hockey related/player related revenues

Yeah, but a significant chunk of those revenues are generated in the playoffs, no?

Last year, the number of playoff games was a little less than 7% of regular season games played. They would get more in ticket revenues per game. But I also think buried in the old CBA was playoff revenues got some special treatment (very vague on that) in the calculations - I'm not sure they're treated the same as a regular season game in terms of the NHLPA's take (a carry over from when the players got nothing for playing playoff games except 'prize' money from the playoffs? and as a reward to the teams making the playoffs).

So it would alter the estimate provided above but the fact remains that the players gave up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars - close to that $800 million number and never got close to recovering that in concessions with their stand.

As an argument over money, they lost it in terms of money pretty big.

 

[maplesyrup]

capgeek: Under the new CBA, teams can retain salary/cap hit in a trade. Conditions to follow. #NHL

capgeek: Teams can retain salary/cap hit for up to three SPCs, to a maximum aggregate cap hit of 15 per cent of upper limit. #NHL

capgeek: Up to 50% of SPC can be retained in trade. An SPC can be traded twice with salary/cap hit retained. #NHL

So 9(ish) mil. in cap space can be retained on 3 players by any 1 team and up to 50% (obviously negotiated in the trade) of any 1 player can be retained.... and that 1 player can be flipped to another team but that's it. Clear as mud...

My only question is. This is per year, right? Either way, this should increase activity significantly.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Lockout salaries lost calculation:
$3.3 bil revenue for 2012 + 6% typical revenue growth x 50% for players x 34 of 82 games lost = $725 mil lost in salaries

plus:
- no or significantly reduced preseason revenue
- no all star game revenue ($ to players pension)
- no New Year's Day game special revenue
- punitive clauses in advertisers/braodcasters  contracts for lockout
- lost of merchandising/league revenue due to lockout (ie poll says 75% of hockey fans to spend less on hockey merchandising than they otherwise would have due to lockout)

- all the above effect hockey related/player related revenues

Yeah, but a significant chunk of those revenues are generated in the playoffs, no?

Last year, the number of playoff games was a little less than 7% of regular season games played. They would get more in ticket revenues per game. But I also think buried in the old CBA was playoff revenues got some special treatment (very vague on that) in the calculations - I'm not sure they're treated the same as a regular season game in terms of the NHLPA's take (a carry over from when the players got nothing for playing playoff games except 'prize' money from the playoffs? and as a reward to the teams making the playoffs).

So it would alter the estimate provided above but the fact remains that the players gave up hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars - close to that $800 million number and never got close to recovering that in concessions with their stand.

As an argument over money, they lost it in terms of money pretty big.

A union isn't in place to save an individual player money. It's in place to better the entire group today and in the future.

So yes, they have lost a large amount of salary(approximately 1 million per player if you average it out...yes I know, the big money guys lost more..lots more), but the NHLPA as a whole would of lost a tonne more in the future if they signed on the dotted line in October.

I'm not a union guy by any means as I've had silly union disagreements effect myself and my family, but I do understand the principal of it all. Individually, the money will never be made back...but as a group, they have to look at the bigger picture.