Players Union Might Want To Listen To Ovechkin
by Gould Old Days on Nov 14, 2009 3:42 PM EST
40 comments
On Wednesday’s Caps Clips, JP linked to a poorly written sportsnet.ca article:
WHERE'S THE BEEF? When the NHL Players Association held its recent conference call, Alexander Ovechkin joined the party. But Ovechkin wasn't on the call to talk about the future of the NHLPA. All he wanted to do was whine about not getting all the money back that he put into escrow.
I am told players earning in the neighborhood of $500,000 to $700,000 were furious with Ovechkin, who by the way, quickly got off the call. Ovechkin, in case you didn't know, is on a 13-year contract that pays him $9 million a year for six years and then $10 million a year for seven years.
The players are on the fourth year of a collective bargaining agreement in which they pay money into escrow each season. In each of the first three years players received most of that money back. Last season the players started off by putting 13.5 per cent of their pay checks into escrow, but part way through the year their contribution was increased to 22.5 per cent. Few players, Ovechkin apparently being one of the exceptions, expected to get much back. In fact, players did receive a little more than five per cent back.
Not enough to please the Russian superstar, though.
Ovechkin is currently out with a mysterious injury that could keep him on the shelf for five weeks.
"Maybe he's not even hurt," one player joked. "Maybe he's protesting not getting his escrow back."
Of course that is not the case, but Ovie didn't do himself any favors by bitching about escrow on a call that was supposed to be about the future of the Players' Association.
Obviously, I wasn't on the call, so I don't know what Ovi really said. But there is a legitimate beef that Ovechkin, and anyone who signed a multi-year contract before this offseason, has with the NHLPA. In fact, any player who signed a long-term contract before this offseason is getting hosed.
The thing about the NHL collective bargaining agreement is that the players aren't actually paid in salary -- they're paid in equity. In effect, the players collectively hold a 50%+ nonvoting share of NHL revenues.
PLAYERS' SHARE OF LEAGUE REVENUES
What will be the players' share of League-wide revenues?
The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.
Salary numbers and salary cap levels, are relative, not fixed. They're not in real dollars -- they're all based on an estimate of what league revenues will be. Normally, the estimate is pretty good, and an NHL salary dollar is worth about one real dollar. But sometimes the estimates are bad, like last year when the financial crisis took everyone by surprise. By the end of the year, the players had lost 16% of their salaries because that's how far revenues dropped. Larry Brooks writes:
Slap Shots has learned that the escrow withholding figure for last season has been calculated at a staggering 15.9 percent. That means, for example, that Alex Ovechkin will wind up losing $1.431M of the $9M he thought he was earning last year for the Caps.
Ouch! Then, in the offseason, the players exercised their 5% salary cap "escalator." Effectively, that reduced the value of an "NHL dollar" by 5%. That 5% went to pay free agents -- the salary cap was ultimately set to 56 Million, but it should have been 5% smaller.
Five percent may seem small, but it's more than 2.5 Million. In effect, the players union voted in June to force the Capitals players already under contract to take up a collection out of their own salaries, and use that to pay Mike Knuble's salary. General managers must have been thrilled, because they were given the opportunity to acquire new players without actually having to pay any more real dollars.
I can understand why the players wanted to make sure this year's free agents could get jobs, but it's got to be bitter for anyone who did have a contract. I'm sure Ovechkin is upset about losing about $400,000 so this year's free agents could make more money -- what I don't understand is why other players aren't more upset. Guys near league minimum like John Erskine and Quintin Laing lost about $27,000 -- serious money for people whose playing careers won't necessarily last very long.
With the significant effects exercising the escalator would have on all sorts of people, you'd think the players association took the decision seriously, right? Brooks again:
Attendance at the union meetings in Las Vegas was so limited, it seemed as if one had wandered into a game in Glendale. Fact is, the PA did not have enough player reps at its own meeting to tally the vote on the critical issue of voting on the 5-percent cap escalator clause that eventually was adopted through e-mail tally.
Much worse, and perhaps scandalous, is that a number of players went to Las Vegas on the union's dime, partied, and never bothered to actually, you know, attend the meetings. Wait until the summer meetings in Rome.
The NHLPA has become an absolute soap opera. But you know, when a guy who negotiated the richest contract in NHL history without an agent gets on the line, maybe you might want to listen to him. He might just have something to say that's worth your while.
If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's authors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.
13 recs |
40 comments
Email
Print
Comments
It reminds me to some degree of how ghetto the union was until Gretzky bought into the group, so they had some credibility. As they’re arguably in worse shape now than back in the mid ‘80s, I think that AO, Malkin, Sid et al. have a few more chips in the pot than they may realize, especially since nobody continues to show at the meetings/conference calls (they didn’t have a quorum when they brought up Fehr last Sunday).
"I'm just doing karate and trying to get females pregnant."
by Bald Pollack on Nov 14, 2009 4:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Made me think they needed someone from the movie the Firm to translate for Ovi.
NHLPA members: “Why do we care about this now?”
Answer: “Because later you’re going to feel like you were fucked by a dick big enough for an elephant.”
by Icebat on Nov 14, 2009 4:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m really lost for words here. If 20% of my income was going into escrow and I wasn’t getting a healthy chunk of that back out, you can be sure that my ass would be in every meeting, firmly planted in a seat and my mouth would be making my fingers known. The apathy is shocking.
by Knee high to a duck on Nov 14, 2009 4:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You can be sure that if I made ~1 Million dollars just to play hockey, I’d be willing to sign away 200k of that if it kept my job secure.
Familiar Rapports: Bald Pollack, F&B, Gould Old Days.
Lobbies: Osala, Perreault, Erskine, Pothier, Neuvirth, Flash.
Fan of: Mean Lars Backstrom, Line Mashing, Cake.
by Whiter Mage on Nov 19, 2009 7:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great job BP. It really makes it hard to feel sorry for whatever fate befalls the PA. If these guys don’t even care enough to think it through then they deserve what they get.
But you know, when a guy who negotiated the richest contract in NHL history without an agent gets on the line, maybe you might want to listen to him.
How much do you think AO really understood the ins and outs of the CBA when he negotiated that deal? I tend to think he wasn’t really contemplating these issues. Also, was he active at all before the escalator vote? If he was speaking up about the ramifications of the vote before the vote it makes it more understandable.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 14, 2009 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gouldie did this one; but I’m a whore for praise.
"I'm just doing karate and trying to get females pregnant."
by Bald Pollack on Nov 14, 2009 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
My bad. Rookie mistake. Saw it was about the union and assumed it was you.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 14, 2009 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually from what I’ve observed just because he and his family represented themselves I’d bet they got some pretty good, friendly advice from friends like Federov last year and I’m quite sure Sergei understood the impact of the Escrow Clauses he’s been bringing it up for some time even before his other more naive business dealings hurt him.
Ovie understood what the max contract was and I’m pretty sure he and his family understand time/value of money. It also appears that both Mr. Leonsis and GMGM as well as the Ovechkins worked together in a fairly open and transparent fashion in developing OV’s contract.
The point made that I don’t get is why more and more superstars including Luongo, Malkin and Crosby haven’t been more vocal sooner but it appears they are all getting more involved. Given the equity is what they are being paid in what do you think the chances are that a few of these guys don’t start pushing for something like shares based on how much they have to put into the escrow account, etc…
by markbona-capsfan99 on Nov 15, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting take. I wonder how much Fedorov got involved given how private financial matters, especially pro-contracts, are. Maybe AO asked his advice but I doubt Fedorov just offered it.
As for the time value of money, wouldn’t the deal have been way more front-loaded if AO was trying to benefit on that? His highest paying years are at the end of the deal, not the beginning.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 15, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they hate escrow so much they can chew on the cap going down, because that’s the alternative. Maybe they could get real TV deals in the US for starters?
Russian Machine very rarely breaks.
by macvechkin on Nov 14, 2009 5:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’m rec’ing this. Excellent fanpost.
It would be nice if there was somewhere that could actually explain what in the hell is going on with the NHLPA. Between Mirtle, Bucci’s article, and a few other places I’ve pieced together a story, but I have no idea if it is the correct one (not that anyone necessarily knows what exactly is going on). Add in all of this infighting over the escrow and all and I am totally lost as to who is on what side.
by renstar on Nov 14, 2009 5:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Really great FanPost. And not to divert it from the substance, but if it was a Canadian guy who raised the issue, Brophy would have praised him for shining a light on what is the issue heading into the new round of collective bargaining.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Nov 14, 2009 10:10 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Oh.
I was wondering why you (JP) used xenophobe in your initial Clip about that story, now I understand. Of course.
Gouldie, thanks for this post. BTW, teh owners are getting ready to inflict a lot of pain on the players in this next CBA. There are plans to essentially make the players pay to participate in the ’Lympics, and they also want the players to start paying for their own sticks-n-such.
I’ll have to read up more on Donald Fehr to see if he is really the rep the NHLPA needs. My Spidey sense is tingling, faintly.
IS PЯESS BOX AGAIN? DЯAT. SHOUT OUT TO KИUBLE.
by Your Nation's Capital on Nov 14, 2009 11:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify, Fehr won’t be the ED; his role (for now, anyway) is to help the search committee place an ED, and to examine the constitution with a separate committee which includes Tim Thomas & Marty Turco, among others.
Both of these groups are separate from the review committee (which Chelios is head/generalissimo of), but apparently will have access to any information that they request.
"I'm just doing karate and trying to get females pregnant."
by Bald Pollack on Nov 15, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At this point, their top priority has to be to get their own house in order. They can’t even start thinking about negotiating with management yet. You look at the backgrounds of the jokers who’ve been passing through the top positions in the NHLPA lately, and Donald Fehr looks like a potential savior just because he’s done this before.
They need a professional — someone with 20+ years of labor law experience. It almost doesn’t matter who it is. It’s like Tony Williams taking over after two decades of Marion Barry and Sharon Pratt Dixon/Kelly. It’s like McPhail taking over after years of Syd Thrift. Just basic competence would be a big step forward here.
The truth is, this isn’t good for the NHL owners. I’m sure Leonsis and Bettman would tell you that they would much prefer to have a strong and solid union. The last CBA moved much more into a partnership model — “you get about 50% of the revenues and we get about 50%. Now let’s focus on making the pie bigger so both of our slices grow” — but the players haven’t been smart enough to figure out how it works. A good union head might be able to improve the business for everyone.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Nov 15, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Another post to recommend G.O.D. Two thumbs up and a snap!
by markbona-capsfan99 on Nov 15, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A side note on all of this — the reporter had to get his information from someone who was in on the conference call. Put aside that it’s someone who for whatever reason was pissed off at Ovechkin, whether it’s because of jealousy over his paycheck, his personality, or some personal squabble. Was he out of line for brining it up at that moment, not that he brought it up? Do the players really want everything they discuss to be aired over the internet? Do they all need to start worrying about what they say in their meetings? If you’re party to the calls and have some issue you want to discuss, do you now have to worry about how it will play out in the press, and does it make you think twice about bringing it up?
by gfcaps fan on Nov 15, 2009 8:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
JP links in Sunday’s clips to this note:
During a recent NHLPA conference call, superstar Alexander Ovechkin, with a cap figure of $9.538 million, groused about having to surrender the 12.9 percent escrow on last year’s pay. The same hit this season would see Ovie surrender $1.23 million. It’s his privilege to gripe. But that kind of giveback is about equal to the combined gross pay of Vladimir Sobotka and Byron Bitz. As on the ice, sometimes it’s best just to take the hit and shut up.
I find this one more palatable, but I still find it hard to believe that’s what Ovechkin really called to say. Maybe he had trouble expressing himself — maybe he dropped off the line before getting to the real point because he was getting jeered. But whatever happened, the NHLPA has some pretty serious issues to address here.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Nov 15, 2009 10:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
We posted this over on the main page…
From Brophy’s article..
Ovechkin is currently out with a mysterious injury that could keep him on the shelf for five weeks. "Maybe he’s not even hurt," one player joked. "Maybe he’s protesting not getting his escrow back." Of course that is not the case, but Ovie didn’t do himself any favors by bitching about escrow on a call that was supposed to be about the future of the Players’ Association.
That’s a cute — and common — rhetorical trick. Plant the seed that puts the object in as dark a light as possible, then use the "of course" throw away to make yourself seem like the voice of reason. What do you think the reader will take away from that comment? I’m betting that Ovechkin is a malingerer.
From Dupont’s article…
[S]uperstar Alexander Ovechkin, with a cap figure of $9.538 million, groused about having to surrender the 12.9 percent escrow on last year’s pay. The same hit this season would see Ovie surrender $1.23 million. It’s his privilege to gripe. But that kind of giveback is about equal to the combined gross pay of Vladimir Sobotka and Byron Bitz.
Well, let’s see. Combined, in 28 man games, Bitz and Sobotka are a combined 3-3-6, even, no power play goals, one game-winner. Each of them are tied for 414th in scoring in the NHL. Ovechkin’s numbers are a little better. His value might be a little higher.
I’m sympathetic to the lunch pail guys like Bitz and Sobotka. Frankly, I thought this class of player was all but abandoned by the NHLPA during the negotiations leading up to and through the lockout (they were more concerned about preserving the ability of the high-end players to continue to be high-salary players). And to that extent, I think Dupont has a point about players with means being quiet about things like this in a group setting — a little more sympathetic to the lesser of their species (if this report is true, Ovechkin is guilty of stupendously bad judgment and is why he ought to have representation handle things like any public — even if it is second hand — discussion of escrow issues). But writers could stand to "just…shut up," too, until this whole thing gets sorted out more clearly.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Nov 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think this is a good take, Peerless. I meant to respond to it when you posted it before but something distracted me. I take issue with the Dupont article from another angle. Why exactly should we be concerned with Sobotka and Bitz? They make 6 figures for being among the worst at their jobs. Sure, they don’t make anywhere near what AO or the other stars make, but to be honest they wouldn’t be making what they even make but for the stars, including AO. Nobody pays to see Sobotka or Bitz. Could we even imagine how unpopular the NHL would be if Sobotka and Bitz were the big name players?
Every union has a tension between protecting the high end performers and the low end performers. The teachers union in America generally protects the low end workers. The NHLPA chose to protect the high end workers. Just because the lower skilled guys may have got shafted in the last CBA doesn’t make it somehow wrong for AO to be pissed that he basically had money voted out of his pocket. If anything that’s a reason for the NHL players to get their heads out of their asses and get the union in order. But instead NHL journalists take the opportunity for another sensational headline by taking a superficial shot at AO. So, the union sucks, the NHL office sucks, and the journalists suck. Where does that leave us?
I do agree that AO exhibited bad judgment, but that’s about all. I don’t think he is wrong, and I don’t think Bitz or Sobotka are particularly sympathetic figures.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 15, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great point...
Would you buy an NHL priced ticket to watch two teams each with 23 Sobotkas and Bitzs on them play each other. I’m a pretty avid, and obsessed hockey fan so I might go to a couple of those games but I’d really re-evaluate my season ticket committment if I thought it was going to be a steady diet.
I’m pretty sure that’s why both the Union and Ownership considered the stars first and foremost last CBA and they will once again.
IMO the line-up of key issues are Escrow/Salary Cap vs. What the Union’s Stars want – Olympics, Merchendising Rights and Royalties …. It’s all about the brand and frankly the guys and teams who are the brand in today’s NHL are: Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, Zetterberg, Luongo and Detroit, the Rangers, the Flyers, Toronto, Montreal and the up and coming Caps. Don’t forget on ownership’s side we’ve seen some disagreements about the brand, the source of it’s value and ownership/rights – remmeber the whole bruhaha over the Rangers Website?
by markbona-capsfan99 on Nov 15, 2009 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Would you buy an NHL priced ticket to watch two teams each with 23 Sobotkas and Bitzs on them play each other.
How many AHL/ECHL games do you go to a year?
Your comment brings something else to mind. How many of the Canadian media make snarky comments about the Maple Leafs and Canadiens ownership when they complain about having to pay out their revenues to teams like PHX and NAS? MLSE and the Habs make tons of money, and basically every one of these owners is wealthy. (I’m not talking rich… I’m talking wealthy.) The Canadian media implicitly and explicitly take the MLSE and Habs sides with the perspective that “they made the money so it’s their right to keep it.” But when AO complains about his paycheck being depleted…
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 15, 2009 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
AO isn’t Canadian, and that about sums it up, no?
by RedBirdie on Nov 15, 2009 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
AO isn’t Canadian and doesn’t play for a Canadian team, and that about sums it up, no?
Pretty much.
If consequences dictate the course of action, then it doesn't matter what's right, it's only wrong if you get caught. If consequences dictate the course of action, then I should play God...
by Fehr and Balanced on Nov 15, 2009 9:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My eyes started bleeding about 1/3 the way through this post. I couldn’t take it. It’s so complicated. What exactly is this escrow account for? Does part of it pay into the union reps’ salaries? Or is it sort of a way for the NHLPA to invest the money, collect interest, and then give the money back to the players?
A sports agent charges what.. usually 5%ish? All that money OV probably thought he was saving by not getting an agent… I wonder if it would have been worth it for him to pay an agent that knew the in’s and out’s a little better.
This reminds me of the UPS union years ago that was poised to go on strike so they started sucking extra due out of everyone’s paychecks… only to not go on strike and keep the money instead of returning it to the workers.
by Brainumbc on Nov 15, 2009 3:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Dude, if it seems too complicated now, I don’t think further explanation is going to reduce its complexity for you. Try reading the CBA FAQ I linked to. If that’s too much to take, I don’t think we can help by throwing more, different words at you.
The reason it appears complicated is that it is complicated.
Atta dinnin stick a who!
by Gould Old Days on Nov 15, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brainumbc: It’s complicated but it’s not at all for or about what you’re talking about/alluding to here. It’s not about union dues it’s tied to the Salary Cap which is limited to a percentage of revenues, and if the revenues don’t meet an estimated level then the salaries which are a percentage of the cap need to be adjusted downward. When that occurs the money to make that adjustment comes from the escrow account…and that is a total oversimplification maybe to the point of being inaccurate but as simple a way to think about it as I understand is possible.
The escrow money never stays with the union after the season’s books are sorted out as I understand it…
Over to the more knowledgeable here…did I get it right guys?
by markbona-capsfan99 on Nov 15, 2009 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s go for the stick figure explanation. Escrow in this instance is more or less the product of an estimate. The players are, under the CBA, entitled to a certain percentage of league-wide revenues. That can’t be know at the beginning of a season, so a portion of the salary to which the player is entitled under the terms of his contract is held back. At four points during the season, the numbers are “trued up” to reflect new revenue numbers. At the end of the season, the players will have a portion (up to, but not necessarily, the entirety) of the amount held in escrow returned to them.
Think of it in terms of a tax refund. Players have a certain amount “withheld,” then get a portion of that back later.
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Nov 16, 2009 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The tax thing makes total sense.. so in essense… they really *ar*e getting paid at least the salary their contract agrees to as long as NHL makes the right amount of profit…
So.. essentially… because those people paying MORE % into escrow, if NHL profits drop, then the these higher % escrow players basically end up losing a little of their escrow money to pay for the lesser paid players.
So.. essentially… because those people paying MORE % into escrow, if NHL profits drop, then the these higher % escrow players basically end up losing a little of their escrow money to pay for the lesser paid players.So yea I can see why some smaller paid players would be pissed at Ovi.. but hey…if you’re kicking in 20% of what’s roughly 10 mil a year and not getting a lot back.
So.. essentially… because those people paying MORE % into escrow, if NHL profits drop, then the these higher % escrow players basically end up losing a little of their escrow money to pay for the lesser paid players.So yea I can see why some smaller paid players would be pissed at Ovi.. but hey…if you’re kicking in 20% of what’s roughly 10 mil a year and not getting a lot back.Now that the less tough part is over..explanation on an individual contract level.. I bet my head would explode if I tried to understand how all this works from an owner-Leonsis-level. I guess he gets his cut of the NHL profits as well (I’m picturing tshirts, jerseys, money made from allowing from Comcast to broadcast their games)….but I wonder where the money from the actual TICKET sales go. 100% to the club or 50/50 club/nhl.
by Brainumbc on Nov 16, 2009 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aye aye aye the triple post thing again.. whats with this?
by Brainumbc on Nov 16, 2009 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not 100% positive on ticket revenues for the NHL, but I believe the vast majority of the money stays with the team. Only a small percentage of gate revenue goes into the big NHL pot.
by RedBirdie on Nov 17, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve always had fun trying to figure out how much money a team makes offa revenue. The cap is roughly 56 mil and I know the caps are right up against it.
~18700 seats at .. ohh lets say an average of 70 bucks a seat (just ballpark) = about 1.3 million a game… * 40 games = ~52.5 million. Maybe it’s less because you dont sell out every game, but then there’s the playoffs so lets just say an even 55 mil a season from tickets. That barely gets you the salaries of just the players alone.
I wonder what other overhead costs come from running a team and what ratio it is to player salaries: office workers and coaches, travel, equipment. I bet promotional and marketing material alone probably costs about 5 million a year.
by Brainumbc on Nov 17, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Although… now that I read that CBG FAQ.. if about half the player salaries come from NHL profit.. then half that 55 mil isn’t going to the salaries.
When Ted posted after the 07/08 season that his team lost around 5 million…. That must mean that either the attendance was just crap.. or the overhead is just insane/
I wonder how much of a salary Ted pays himself and if he’s actually the marjority shareholder of the caps or if an entity set up by him (a corp or trust) is actually the owner.
Maybe I’m just getting too nosy.. but just curious. Anyone have any links by anyone breaking down the budget of a professional sports team? Not just the NHL, but any league?
by Brainumbc on Nov 17, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
keep in mind, the Caps pay rent at the VC. They have a sparkling new practice facility that costs money to operate. They cover all the travel costs (chartering flights ain’t cheap!), they have to pay the coaching staff, McPhee and the rest of the front office, they advertise like mad, etc. etc.
by RedBirdie on Nov 17, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn’t Ted the majority shareholder for VC as well? Heh can’t he just charge them 1 dollar a month? :) Seems like you’d have some advantages by owning different businesses that happen to “do business” with each other
by Brainumbc on Nov 17, 2009 4:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well.. I guess the other VC shareholders would get pissed if he did that
by Brainumbc on Nov 17, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe Ted (well, Lincoln Holdings) owns a 44% share. and as always, remember that the VC has some big debts that have to be paid down, since it was privately built with private loans.
by RedBirdie on Nov 17, 2009 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct at the 44%, with a right of first refusal for the majority share when Abe sells.
by gfcaps fan on Nov 17, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So it’s Teds fault that Radiohead played at that crappy Nissan Pavilion last year instead of VC..
Damnit Radiohead! If you really want to have a “green” tour, play somewhere people can actually take public transportation!
by Brainumbc on Nov 17, 2009 10:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re the origninal leak and story..
I think xenophobia and jealousy is right on the source of this….it’s also symptomatic of a big issue that needs to be addressed if the NHLPA is ever going to be able to negotiate a fair and reasonable contract next time. The leak should never have occured. OV and guys like Crosby, Di Pietro, etc – basically anyone with a salary of say $4M+ and especially those with deals longer than 3 or 4 years all have a legitmate beef. That is especially true of the young stars and “faces” of the NHL.
The fact that many of these guys are not Canadian could be an issue but it shouldn’t be. Here’s a fact in the NFL to get a retirement you need to play 4 seasons, the average NFL career is 3.X seasons – hows that for actuarial analysis?
As has been mentioned the NHLPA (and NHL Owners) need to keep the partnership in place such that “a rising tide raises all boats” while also acknowledging the biggest percentage bet on that will come from stars like Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Nash etc. Those guys all have long term deals at or near Cap Max numbers. How in a meritocracy do they benefit more or get properly acknowledged this next CBA – it’ll be about escrow and merchandising rights for their own personal “world-wide brands” – what will help that – I say the Olympics…. Ignoring that and making it a big lets dig our heels in issue could easily be the biggest boon to helping the KHL imrpove it’s legitimacy as an alternative to the NHL…
by markbona-capsfan99 on Nov 15, 2009 8:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
72 | 48 | 14 | 10 | 106 |
|
Atlanta
|
71 | 31 | 29 | 11 | 73 |
|
Carolina
|
71 | 30 | 33 | 8 | 68 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
71 | 28 | 31 | 12 | 68 |
|
Florida
|
70 | 28 | 31 | 11 | 67 |
(updated 3.21.2010 at 8:42 AM EDT)
The Vault
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
