Panarin Says Escrow Needs to be Fixed Before Players Return to Camp

Oh well. That's part of being in a union and having "collective bargaining".

 

Well boo hoo that you're getting 9+ Million vs 11+ to play a game for 6 months.

 

Look, escrow is a necessary evil to provide cost certainty for owners. Despite what you hear about how profitable the NHL is, about 1/3 of teams lose money, and some don't make much of a profit.

 

The owners are putting up the money to run the league. Without a league, owners, buildings, etc...There is no where for the players to play. Go the KHL, if you don't like it. The owners are taking much more of a risk financially than the players and they are only asking to be made whole in a 50/50 partnership with the NHLPA.

 

So if players didn't take a hit on escrow, wound up with salary being 65% of revenue and owners getting 35%, how would a league survive? This is pretty standard across other capped leagues, even if the escrow system is different.

 

 

 

Hockey players have it pretty good from a revue share standpoint, plus they have guaranteed contracts.

Pete. I'm finding myself in an odd spot in that I'm agreeing with RMC and Albatross and disagreeing with you here. I don't understand for the life of me how this isn't on the owners.

The cap is calculated by dividing projected revenue by 2 (to create your players/owners split) and by 31(per team maximum spend). I bolded two key tenets - projected and maximum spend. First, players have little to no bearing on projected revenue. That's all on the owners. Artemi Panarin doesn't guarantee an extra 40M in revenue for the league scoring 100 points. It's causal in the sense that a better performing team is likely to sell more tickets, but even that is on the owners to market the players, to sell the tickets, to print the merch, to expand the reach, to get the ad dollars and sponsorships and things to ensure they're making money. If they don't meet that target, but they said they would, why should they be allowed to recall revenue?

Further, maximum spend. Nobody is forcing owners to spend as much as they do; they could spend as little as 65% of what they do. They choose to pay players what they're worth. They can't be pissed when the players ask to be paid what they were told they would be paid.

What escrow SHOULD do is what you're saying it does. Escrow has not functioned as a guarantor for the owners; if so, we'd be seeing 2% payments. It's functioned as a way for the owners to reduce salaries without actually reducing salaries. Point to the escalator all you want; the escrow paybacks have outpaced the escalator by more than 3% every single year - even in years when the NHLPA declined to use the escalator or only exercised smaller escalators.

Pete. I'm finding myself in an odd spot in that I'm agreeing with RMC and Albatross and disagreeing with you here. I don't understand for the life of me how this isn't on the owners.

 

The cap is calculated by dividing projected revenue by 2 (to create your players/owners split) and by 31(per team maximum spend). I bolded two key tenets - projected and maximum spend. First, players have little to no bearing on projected revenue. That's all on the owners. Artemi Panarin doesn't guarantee an extra 40M in revenue for the league scoring 100 points. It's causal in the sense that a better performing team is likely to sell more tickets, but even that is on the owners to market the players, to sell the tickets, to print the merch, to expand the reach, to get the ad dollars and sponsorships and things to ensure they're making money. If they don't meet that target, but they said they would, why should they be allowed to recall revenue?

 

Further, maximum spend. Nobody is forcing owners to spend as much as they do; they could spend as little as 65% of what they do. They choose to pay players what they're worth. They can't be pissed when the players ask to be paid what they were told they would be paid.

 

What escrow SHOULD do is what you're saying it does. Escrow has not functioned as a guarantor for the owners; if so, we'd be seeing 2% payments. It's functioned as a way for the owners to reduce salaries without actually reducing salaries. Point to the escalator all you want; the escrow paybacks have outpaced the escalator by more than 3% every single year - even in years when the NHLPA declined to use the escalator or only exercised smaller escalators.

What are your sources for this? Because I couldn't find it.

Regardless, I don't know what you mean by "on the owners". There is nothing happening to be blamed on anyone.

Again, cost certainty...Owners and players split revenue 50/50. If, at the end of the year, there isn't a 50/50 between owners and players, the owners are made whole. Again, this split is standard in capped leagues.

I don't get why anyone is complaining, much less Panarin, and again...this has nothing to do with "playing for free".

The owners take the overwhelming majority of the risk

Sports franchises in many cases aren?t particularly profitable, especially in certain sports and in certain markets and you can?t run them in the same way as you?d run just about any other business.

Player salaries are fully guaranteed

There shouldn?t really be a huge issue

If they?re playing less, they should get less

The owners take the overwhelming majority of the risk

Sports franchises in many cases aren’t particularly profitable, especially in certain sports and in certain markets and you can’t run them in the same way as you’d run just about any other business.

 

Player salaries are fully guaranteed

 

There shouldn’t really be a huge issue

If they’re playing less, they should get less

How do owners take a majority of the risk? Without players, there's no product. Pay them or lose them. If owners aren't making money, why are they in business and continue to be in business. Who would WANT to lose hundreds of millions a year? I don't and never will buy this nonsense about sports teams continually losing money. No person who can fork over money to buy into a league, would be OK with losing that kind of money over and over and over again.

I'll side with the players on almost anything in any sport.

BUT, in all of this. I d like to see the athletes give back to the fans. People are dying for sports and to get back to normal.

Financially, I'd like to see the players whom make under a million get something to finish out the season. They are the most affected by work outage. With top guys already financially set, they aren't taking the hit like the little guy. While they are definitely leaving money on the table, I think they can afford to do so. Show that union brotherly love and help out the guys on the bottom of totem pole. Have a pot set aside for them if possible.

How do owners take a majority of the risk? Without players, there's no product. Pay them or lose them. If owners aren't making money, why are they in business and continue to be in business. Who would WANT to lose hundreds of millions a year? I don't and never will buy this nonsense about sports teams continually losing money. No person who can fork over money to buy into a league, would be OK with losing that kind of money over and over and over again.

 

I'll side with the players on almost anything in any sport.

 

BUT, in all of this. I d like to see the athletes give back to the fans. People are dying for sports and to get back to normal.

 

Financially, I'd like to see the players whom make under a million get something to finish out the season. They are the most affected by work outage. With top guys already financially set, they aren't taking the hit like the little guy. While they are definitely leaving money on the table, I think they can afford to do so. Show that union brotherly love and help out the guys on the bottom of totem pole. Have a pot set aside for them if possible.

When it comes to finances, the owners take the risk

It’s a huge outlay to purchase a team. Then salaries and operating costs are massive.

They aren’t guaranteed to make a profit.

And if you want to win, usually what you have to do is take what profits you do make and fold them back into the organization.

When it comes to finances, the owners take the risk

It’s a huge outlay to purchase a team. Then salaries and operating costs are massive.

They aren’t guaranteed to make a profit.

And if you want to win, usually what you have to do is take what profits you do make and fold them back into the organization.

Then they are pretty shitty businessmen if they buy a business that is continuesly losing money. But thats not why owners buy sports teams

Then they are pretty shitty businessmen if they buy a business that is continuesly losing money. But thats not why owners buy sports teams

Exactly. They don’t buy sports franchises because of the profitability. We all know this. It doesn’t make them shitty business people. In fact, the entities that buy these franchises are only in a position to do so typically because of them being so successful in their other business ventures.

Simply not like any other business.

Even with the TV deals, revenue sharing, etc., profits aren’t just there to be had by all teams in all sports. And as stated, competitiveness on the ice, field, court, etc., typically requires profits (or a good portion of them) be funneled back into the franchise. That’s the reality of sports ownership.

Not saying they can’t or won’t make money. Plenty do. But it’s a difficult and treacherous path to do that. And then there’s a fan base to satisfy, which you don’t deal with in any other business.

They aren’t like shareholders or employees. Overwhelming majority of fans could care less about the profitability of the franchises they root for.

Why do people always try to compare sports to real life jobs?

 

If I already got paid 9 million this season, yes I would go play hockey for free lol.

 

It's just stupid to post that on social media. It really just goes to show you how toned f owners and players are to what's going on in the real world.

 

That's okay Artemi, fon't play. Let the league fold. Then what are you going to do for a living?

Come visit this forum and put up with all the naysayers! BTW, the players got free agency because they formed a union in spite of severe opposition from the owners who treated them like peons; as in most pro sports. The players make the fans come to spend mucho moolah on seats that are crammed in. Food that is atrocious. And jerseys and the like that are made in far away lands by people that are paid peanuts. People were going ballistic because Panarin chose the NYR over other teams that offered more $$$$. Now the usual doomers are unhappy because he is standing on principle. Typical nonsense.

The cap goes up. Players get higher salaries.

 

The NHL skim when projections aren't met. It's money held in escrow.

Link:

Seems like a reasonable solution to me.

Pretty sure Mckegg already qualifies for a full NHL pension, which is 50K US a year I believe.

if any of us on this board were in the percentile of making it as far in our chosen profsessions as McKegg has been in his, we;d be entitled to way more of a pension.

Entitled to a pension? In public service by chance? lol

So funny what counts as privilege these days.

My Civil Servant dad reviewing my last contract with my employer..

"Where's the outlined wage schedule that shows what your raise will be each year?"

hahahaha