Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Players Seeing Some Money

from Kevin Allen of USA TODAY,

When Shea Weber signed an offer sheet from the Philadelphia Flyers, it included a $13 million signing bonus that he received once the Nashville Predators matched. He'll miss out on $1 million in salary while locked out.

Zach Parise and Ryan Suter each got a $10 million signing bonus from the 13-year, $98 million deals they signed with the Minnesota Wild.

According to CapGeek.com, Buffalo Sabres defenseman Tyler Myers received a $10 million bonus this summer while New York Rangers center Brad Richards ($8 million), Buffalo Sabres defenseman Christian Ehrhoff ($5 million) and Columbus Blue Jackets defenseman James Wisniewski ($3 million) received bonuses during the summer on deals signed in 2011.

Injured players will also get paid during the lockout, and the New York Rangers' Marian Gaborik (shoulder surgery) will draw on his $7.5 million salary until he's cleared by team doctors to play.

Boston Bruins center Marc Savard ($6.5 million) and Flyers defenseman Chris Pronger ($7.2 million) could get paid all season as they recover from concussions.

All players will at least have some cash flow in October because the league will return most, if not all, of each player's escrow payments from last season.

read on

Filed in: NHL Teams, NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Avatar

All players will at least have some cash flow in October because the league will return most, if not all, of each player’s escrow payments from last season.

Just as the NHL has done every season.  Yet your boy George continues to complain about escrow because it “takes away NHL players’ money to subsidize AHL injury callups.”  It’s been total B.S. for 7 years, but he says it over and over as if it’s gospel.  Maybe this will finally stop him from spreading the falsehood.

Posted by jkm2011 on 09/26/12 at 07:46 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Just as the NHL has done every season.

Right.

Hey, the taxes on my house went up $20 a month last year. I paid $40 a month extra into my escrow account to make sure it was covered.

I just got a $240 check from the mortgage company.  FREE MONEY, DUDE!

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/26/12 at 08:18 PM ET

Avatar

Nice analogy, J.J., except you’re wrong as usual.  If you are being taken by your mortgage company, it’s YOUR own fault.  And if the players complain about paying so much in escrow, it’s their own fault.  Their the ones that VOTED in all those escalators that took the percentage from 54% to 57%.  They have a choice, just like you do.

Revenues have grown so much they’ve gotten it all, or nearly all, back at the end of every season.  So what is there to complain about other than the lie Malik spreads to garner sympathy for the players?  Your housing taxes escrow money does not work that way.  You have to pay your taxes no matter what.  They players haven’t had to pay.  Get it?

Posted by jkm2011 on 09/28/12 at 11:00 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Revenues have grown so much they’ve gotten it all, or nearly all, back at the end of every season.

Getting nearly all of your escrow back means you gave money back in salaries.

Your housing taxes escrow money does not work that way.  You have to pay your taxes no matter what.  They players haven’t had to pay.  Get it?

Yes, I get it perfectly. You don’t understand that the players have received more than their escrow allocations back 2 out of 7 years of the CBA while they’ve gotten less than their full allocation returned to them the other 5, including a 13% pay cut two years ago and a 0.5% pay cut last year.

My analogy works perfectly, the fact that you think the players haven’t had to pay is completely wrong.  Stop believing wrong things and you’ll understand that my escrow analogy is perfectly explained because IT’S EXACTLY HOW ESCROW WORKS… IT’S THE DEFINITION OF ESCROW.

Escrow is set by the NHLPA. the players SHOULD always get money back from the money they pay into that fund because the NHLPA has to make sure that there’s enough money in the fund to pay the league back what the players owe if revenues don’t meet expectations.

And if the players complain about paying so much in escrow, it’s their own fault.  Their the ones that VOTED in all those escalators that took the percentage from 54% to 57%.

Well, the first part of this sentence is right. It is indeed the players’ own fault in a few years when they had to pay back money in escrow because they took an escalator.

However, thinking the players voted to take the percentage from 54 to 57% is not at all accurate.

Please don’t try to teach other people about how the financials of hockey or even how the concept of escrow works. You have no clue what you’re talking about.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/28/12 at 11:34 AM ET

Avatar

Getting nearly all of your escrow back means you gave money back in salaries.

Nah.  It means you got overpaid.  As an equity partner in a business it isn’t terribly uncommon for one equity partner to overdraw on his portion of company proceeds, whereupon he has to make restitution to the partnership in order to keep the financial equity positions in alignment.

The players, as a group, signed too much in contracts… or close enough to too much where an escrow system needs to be implemented to safeguard against substantial overpayments in player share.

However, thinking the players voted to take the percentage from 54 to 57% is not at all accurate.

Oh?  So how did that particular codicil where player share increased as revenue increased get in the CBA then?  Magic?  smile

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/28/12 at 11:52 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Nah.  It means you got overpaid

False difference.

Oh?  So how did that particular codicil where player share increased as revenue increased get in the CBA then?  Magic?  smile

Well if you ignore the part where there’s a charge that the players voting the escalators did this rather than the CBA doing it, then you’re right.

Of course, that means ignoring context to take a pedantic shot that hits well-wide of the mark, but it’s your life, buddy.

The players voting to take an escalator didn’t cause the share to rise from 54 to 57%, the actual CBA and actual revenues did that.  If the players voted on an escalator which created an assumption that revenues would go high enough to create a larger player share (which didn’t actually happen), that wouldn’t have changed what percentage they were actually owed.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/28/12 at 01:03 PM ET

Avatar

False difference.

No, it’s not.

Again, the problem you are having is in the failure to recognize the CBA as the pre-eminent contract, not the SPCs.  It literally doesn’t matter what the SPCs add up to in terms of total salary.  If, at the end of the season, that number is more than their allotted 57%, they owe.  If less, they get.  The escrow provisions are meant to address the former, obviously.

It’s not a question of ‘giving back’ their salaries.  They, the players, will receive exactly the 57% of HRR they were scheduled to receive per the CBA.  No more, no less. 

In other words, thinking the owners should be able to guess what total league contracts will add up to in advance and self-modulate their individual spending to prevent escrow losses is a really stupid expectation to have… and if that wasn’t your expectation then you are literally talking about nothing.

The players voting to take an escalator didn’t cause the share to rise from 54 to 57%, the actual CBA and actual revenues did that.  If the players voted on an escalator which created an assumption that revenues would go high enough to create a larger player share (which didn’t actually happen), that wouldn’t have changed what percentage they were actually owed.

Now that’s a textbook false difference, JJ.  The players voted on the clause which included a provision which would set their share of revenue’s at 57% at a certain revenue level.  Your statement “However, thinking the players voted to take the percentage from 54 to 57% is not at all accurate” is a failed attempt by you to somehow absolve the players of actually having agreed to what they agreed to.

No, the players voting on an escalator clause didn’t cause the revenue to rise, but the players voting on an escalator clause insured that if it did rise they would get a progressively larger piece of the pie.

And your inconsistency aside, if either the players or owners couldn’t anticipate that through basic economic creep and inflationary valuation that revenues would increase from 2.2 billion to at least 2.7 billion within 6 years… no.  I refuse to believe that people could possibly be that stupid and actually hold negotiator jobs of that level.

Any kind of relevant TV deal + 3-5% ticket price increases a year would have done it.  Heck, you wouldn’t even need to have anything but 5% a year in ticket price bumps to do it.  Double heck, it might not even have taken that, figuring in 1-2% a year in inflation.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/28/12 at 01:55 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

It’s not a question of ‘giving back’ their salaries.  They, the players, will receive exactly the 57% of HRR they were scheduled to receive per the CBA.  No more, no less.

What a dumb thing to argue.

The players will end up with their share of revenues. They have already received their contracted salaries. When their fair share of revenues is exceed by what they received, they give back salary.  Saying something in a different (and dumber) way doesn’t make it different.

In other words, thinking the owners should be able to guess what total league contracts will add up to in advance and self-modulate their individual spending to prevent escrow losses is a really stupid expectation to have… and if that wasn’t your expectation then you are literally talking about nothing.

Saying that post-hoc modulation of spending via en escrow system doesn’t include the chronological considerations of to whom any dollar belongs to at any given point in time because it’s all defined at the end would be a very nice thing to argue if things like interest rates weren’t so damned dependent upon things like time.

Even your preeminent document defines every bit a player is paid by his post-hoc modulated contract is salary. You’re literally arguing that whatever percentage a player loses back to the league to correct for differences between commitments and revenues was never his salary to begin with.

Your statement “However, thinking the players voted to take the percentage from 54 to 57% is not at all accurate” is a failed attempt by you to somehow absolve the players of actually having agreed to what they agreed to.

Once again, ignoring the pertinent part of why this argument was made in the first place is leading you to create an argument I was never having.

No, the players voting on an escalator clause didn’t cause the revenue to rise, but the players voting on an escalator clause insured that if it did rise they would get a progressively larger piece of the pie.

You just redefined what escalator meant in order to change the argument. The player-voted escalator is not the same as the clause in the last CBA that defined the players’ share in comparison to HRR.

<the rest of what you said>

Not pertinent to the original discussion.

In short, you’re right about everything except the parts where you’re trying to say I’m wrong.  It’s just that my definitions are better and more honest.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/28/12 at 02:30 PM ET

Avatar

The players will end up with their share of revenues. They have already received their contracted salaries. When their fair share of revenues is exceed by what they received, they give back salary. 

The problem is that you are attempting to frame ‘giving back salary’ in a pejorative manner, when it’s not.  When you say something like “My analogy works perfectly, the fact that you think the players haven’t had to pay is completely wrong.” you’re either unaware of the realities of the situation or just being dishonest.  The players don’t have to give back or give away anything, nor have they.  They aren’t ‘paying’ anything.

They’ve received exactly the amount of HRR they were supposed to get.  Nothing more, and nothing less.

Saying that post-hoc modulation of spending via en escrow system doesn’t include the chronological considerations of to whom any dollar belongs to at any given point in time because it’s all defined at the end would be a very nice thing to argue if things like interest rates weren’t so damned dependent upon things like time.

Unfortunately, until either the NHLPA voluntarily agrees to lower the salary cap to a point where even if every team spent right up to it the players share couldn’t possibly be overspent or the NHL somehow adds Doctor Who to their payroll, we have to deal with the reality of time and space.

The Owners get their 43%, the players get around 48-50% during the season, and then they get their last 7-9% after the books get cleaned up.  It’s neither a big deal nor an instance of moral turpitude.  It’s how people have to deal with the realities of successive events.

Even your preeminent document defines every bit a player is paid by his post-hoc modulated contract is salary. You’re literally arguing that whatever percentage a player loses back to the league to correct for differences between commitments and revenues was never his salary to begin with.

It wasn’t..  Isn’t that obvious?  The players (under the old CBA anyhow) were entitled to 57% of HRR revenues.  They are not entitled to as much as the owners collectively sign them to in their SPCs.

Why?

Because a) it is impossible to know what 57% of the upcoming year’s HRR is going to be and b) it is far less calamitous to players to withhold portions of paychecks than it would be to issue bills to players at the end of each season to even out the HRR split.

I mean, seriously, how many people do you know who set their Federal and State witholdings each year to zero, preferring to just pay a gigantic bill around March in one lump sum?  There aren’t many even though there actually is some ‘revenue’ lost due to the time-value of money.

You just redefined what escalator meant in order to change the argument. The player-voted escalator is not the same as the clause in the last CBA that defined the players’ share in comparison to HRR.

You are making a meaningless distinction because the document the players voted on and approved contained both things.

The players voted and approved every single portion of the CBA when they approved the CBA in whole.  For you to claim otherwise is false.

The players receive exactly as much of HRR as they are supposed to receive.  For you to claim otherwise is false.

Those are the areas in which we disagree, and the areas in which you are demonstrably incorrect.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/28/12 at 03:42 PM ET

Avatar

Ah, quick addendum:

Not pertinent to the original discussion.

Wrong again.

You: ”  If the players voted on an escalator which created an assumption that revenues would go high enough to create a larger player share (which didn’t actually happen), that wouldn’t have changed what percentage they were actually owed.”

Me: “if either the players or owners couldn’t anticipate that through basic economic creep and inflationary valuation that revenues would increase from 2.2 billion to at least 2.7 billion within 6 years… no.  I refuse to believe that people could possibly be that stupid and actually hold negotiator jobs of that level.”

My point is that players and owners absolutely HAD to know with a very high level of certainty that revenues would, in fact grow to a point where the upper tier of the escalator clause would be reached.

I am saying that the players did, in fact, vote on that CBA with the likely understanding that they would, in fact, be receiving 57% of HRR at some point in the deal.  I hardly suspect they figured they’d be getting it by year 3 or 4, but it’s impossible for me to believe that they couldn’t foresee basic economic forces pushing the split there by year 5 or 6.

You appear to be saying that they had no real clue revenues could get where they would need to be to get to a 57% split.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 09/28/12 at 03:47 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

The players don’t have to give back or give away anything, nor have they.  They aren’t ‘paying’ anything.

Yes, they have had to give back. This is not in question. They were paid too much in 5 of 7 years and had to give back. The money they received at the end of the escrow funding phase in 5 of 7 years was less than the money they paid into the pot. This is giving back.

The Owners get their 43%, the players get around 48-50% during the season, and then they get their last 7-9% after the books get cleaned up.  It’s neither a big deal nor an instance of moral turpitude.  It’s how people have to deal with the realities of successive events.

Except it’s wrong that they get around 48-50% of the season. The NHLPA collects escrow, not the league.  There is no money withheld from player contracts for escrow by the teams, that money is given from the owners to the players to the NHLPA. The money at one point is in the hands of the player BEFORE he hands it to escrow.

It wasn’t..  Isn’t that obvious?

See my previous sentence.

You are making a meaningless distinction because the document the players voted on and approved contained both things.

But both things are different, so it’s important to distinguish which we were actually talking about. I was talking about one and you started talking about the other because you completely ignored the context which clearly defined that I was talking about the one and not the other.

The players voted and approved every single portion of the CBA when they approved the CBA in whole.  For you to claim otherwise is false.

The players receive exactly as much of HRR as they are supposed to receive.  For you to claim otherwise is false.

Attributing either of those claims to me is what is false. It is a needless strawman in a conversation I don’t think you understood to begin with.

My point is that players and owners absolutely HAD to know with a very high level of certainty that revenues would, in fact grow to a point where the upper tier of the escalator clause would be reached.

Tell you what, do a Google search for “escalator clause NHL” you are calling a part of the CBA an escalator clause that is not what the rest of the hockey world is referring to when they use the same term.

The escalator clause is not the part of the CBA you’re saying it is. You’re saying article 50.4(b) is the “escalator clause” and I’m saying (with the backing of the entire hockey world.) that the “escalator clause” is 50.5(b)(i)

I look forward to you explaining how the rest of the world is using YOUR term incorrectly.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 09/28/12 at 04:32 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com