Thread: The Official CBA Negotiations/Lockout Super Thread

Originally Posted by kluka68

It could be long.According to the Detroit Free Press, the veteran Red Wings forward thinks the lockout could last longer than the 2004 edition which saw an entire season cancelled.

"I think people don't think it can go a year," Cleary told the Free Press on Sunday. "As players, we think it can. Maybe longer."

Cleary feels both sides are waiting for the other side to blink in the current labour showdown and he is confident the players will not cave this time.

"I think the league is waiting for us to make the move, and we're waiting for them to move. So someone has to move. And I don't see it coming from our end," Cleary told the newspaper. "We've given them a couple of good options that they can work with, and they, obviously, feel it's not good enough."

Report: Red Wings' Cleary thinks NHL lockout could go long

One thing is 100% certain about this lockout: every dime the players lose during the lockout is money lost forever. They will NEVER be able to get that money back by any salary increase / other benefit.

What is Cleary's point, "we'll sit out for more than a year - just to make a point?" What point? Less money?! Go ahead.

Where can I "cave in" and make $2m??

Originally Posted by Butch 19

One thing is 100% certain about this lockout: every dime the players lose during the lockout is money lost forever. They will NEVER be able to get that money back by any salary increase / other benefit.

What is Cleary's point, "we'll sit out for more than a year - just to make a point?" What point? Less money?! Go ahead.

Where can I "cave in" and make $2m??

If they did the smart thing and *GASP!* caved now, took a 50-50 spilt, or maybe took a gradual change toward 50-50, the worst they could do is lose 7% over the length of the contract.

If they don't cave, they (well, those not in the KHL & Europe) will lose 7% every two weeks, every pay check, for the length of the season (14 paychecks).

What does the law of diminishing returns have to say about this?

Some more good reading:

How much blame do NHL owners deserve for their economic woes? | Red Light

Originally Posted by Bogey

If they did the smart thing and *GASP!* caved now, took a 50-50 spilt, or maybe took a gradual change toward 50-50, the worst they could do is lose 7% over the length of the contract.

If they don't cave, they (well, those not in the KHL & Europe) will lose 7% every two weeks, every pay check, for the length of the season (14 paychecks).

If they took a 50/50 split, they'd actually be losing a little over 12% of their salary, so if it costs them one paycheck to not have the full drop to 50/50 this year, they come out ahead. If they just angle for the cap not to go lower than it is in real dollars, they can agree to going with a lower percentage as long as HRR rises.

Originally Posted by fiveholio:2588802

Originally Posted by Bogey

If they did the smart thing and *GASP!* caved now, took a 50-50 spilt, or maybe took a gradual change toward 50-50, the worst they could do is lose 7% over the length of the contract.

If they don't cave, they (well, those not in the KHL & Europe) will lose 7% every two weeks, every pay check, for the length of the season (14 paychecks).

If they took a 50/50 split, they'd actually be losing a little over 12% of their salary...

Let's see the math.

Originally Posted by Bogey

Let's see the math.

Really?

We're talking about percent of HRR, but the players are going from 57% of HRR to 50%.

To make this easy, let's say HRR is $100, so the player gets $57 now. They're proposing he gets $50 instead. He's losing $7 out of $57, which is about 12.28% (7/57=.122807)

Originally Posted by fiveholio

Originally Posted by Bogey

If they did the smart thing and *GASP!* caved now, took a 50-50 spilt, or maybe took a gradual change toward 50-50, the worst they could do is lose 7% over the length of the contract.

If they don't cave, they (well, those not in the KHL & Europe) will lose 7% every two weeks, every pay check, for the length of the season (14 paychecks).

If they took a 50/50 split, they'd actually be losing a little over 12% of their salary, so if it costs them one paycheck to not have the full drop to 50/50 this year, they come out ahead. If they just angle for the cap not to go lower than it is in real dollars, they can agree to going with a lower percentage as long as HRR rises.

There is more to it. If you think in the long run it is more complicated. Consider that the lockout eats up 4 checks. As Bogey stated ( I am assuming his numbers are correct) 4 checks would amount to 28% of their pay. What Is the Average Salary in the NHL? | eHow.com This link shows that the average salary hit of a NHL player is 2.4 million meaning that if they loose 28% of their salary they would miss out on 672,000. (assuming these numbers reflect the average player) Lets say that such a deal that ends the lockout lasts for 10 years. (totally hypothetical, a shorter or longer one would need a recalculation) If Fiveholio is right that 12% would be lost at a drop to 50/50 (not disputing that either) Then it would take 3 years for the average player to get into the green on a lockout.These guys in the union are going to look into the long term. That said, the players are going to miss their salary amd may not look so long term as I just explained.

Originally Posted by fiveholio

Really?

We're talking about percent of HRR, but the players are going from 57% of HRR to 50%.

To make this easy, let's say HRR is $100, so the player gets $57 now. They're proposing he gets $50 instead. He's losing $7 out of $57, which is about 12.28% (7/57=.122807)

Yeah, really.
I hadn't even tried to figure it out.
I just looked at it as 57%-50%=7%.
Never said I was a math major.

Point stands that most will lose much less if they settle now instead of pledging to sit out a year or even more.