HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Washington Capitals (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   League News: All-things CBA Negotiations (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1246491)

californiacapsfan 08-14-2012 03:56 PM

All-things CBA Negotiations
 
Didn't see a thread for this. Sorry if I missed it mods.

News from the ESPN NHL twitter about the NHLPA's proposal

Quote:

Donald Fehr, the executive director of the NHL Players' Association, says players are set to surrender as much as $465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. He says that number could balloon to $800 million if the league grows at the same rate it has over the past two seasons.

That proposal called for lowering the players' share in revenue and introducing new contract restrictions, including a five-year cap on deals.

californiacapsfan 08-14-2012 04:10 PM

NBCSports ProHockeyTalk blog has slightly different info:

Quote:

The nuts and bolts of the NHLPA offer are:

– Proposed three-year collective bargaining agreement, with an option for a fourth. (link)

– The fourth year is an option to revert to the current CBA. (link)

– Players are willing to take a lower HHR (hockey related revenue) share over the next three years. (link)

– Current rules for player salaries, contract lengths and free agent eligibility would remain unchanged. (link)

– Deal would include a hard salary cap “with some exceptions.” (link)

– One exception appears to be a luxury tax. (link)

As for the tone of and reaction to the meeting, Fehr said the talks were “frank” and “certainly professional,” but added that players and owners “don’t see the world the same way.”

usiel 08-14-2012 07:14 PM

Still not having much optimism. Kudus to the NHLPA for actually submitting something significant. Though ultimately I tend to favor the owners over the players when it comes to pro sports CBA crappola.

brs03 08-14-2012 07:24 PM

PA/Fehr made a shrewd move here. Turns the discussion, at least in part, from owners vs. players to rich owners vs. poor owners. I mean, it was always a big part of the issue but this makes it more visible.

I don't know what'll end up happening though. If the terms of the proposal are similar to what's been mentioned it sounds only like a temporary patch, and I doubt the owners want to deal with these issues again in 3 years or whatever.

stanleycaps98 08-14-2012 07:37 PM

I have a bad feeling about this.

SimplySensational 08-14-2012 07:38 PM

I hope the Capitals organization before a lockout happens will have some sort of meeting to come up with a strategy to get players to play together... Cause as it stands I believe Backstrom going back to SEL would be to his home team, MoJo too, there is no benefit to that.

However they could either go Dynamo Moscow because that's where Ovechkin will have to go unless he gets a offer sheet they won't match, or at the very least Backstrom in Traktor would be nice.

BrooklynCapsFan 08-14-2012 08:23 PM

Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard

brs03 08-14-2012 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynCapsFan (Post 53579951)
Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard

It's step 2 that's the hitch (and will always be). Partly because there's not even a unified position that the owners can take other than "we want to spend as little as possible."

BrooklynCapsFan 08-14-2012 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 53580749)
It's step 2 that's the hitch (and will always be). Partly because there's not even a unified position that the owners can take other than "we want to spend as little as possible."

It shouldn't be that hard honestly. And I blame the owners for not providing the nhlpa with audited financials much much sooner. As long as both parties are reasonable, you can slice the pie fairly. I do think the percentage should come down, but given the lack of transparency from the owners, maybe I'm wrong.

I'm kind of amazed that it might come to a lockout when the league looks very healthy on the surface.

um 08-14-2012 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrooklynCapsFan (Post 53579951)
Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard

you must be a businessman

brs03 08-14-2012 09:04 PM

I think it's just a fight between rich owners and poor owners. Rich owners don't want to subsidize poor owners. Poor owners can't afford to keep up without better revenue sharing. The only way for both of them to be happy is to give less to the players.

So all of the jockeying back and forth is going to be about how much do you cut the players' share, and how much do you close the gap via expanded revenue sharing. All the other stuff is secondary, I think.

If the players really aren't going to take a hard stance against the reduced definition of HRR and a reduced share, then there might be hope and it might not be very hard at all (relative to expectations, at least). No way of knowing anything like that yet though, since the proposal was just put out today.

cleaver 08-14-2012 11:28 PM

The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.

txpd 08-15-2012 06:30 AM

snyder and the flyers v the predetors.

brs03 08-15-2012 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleaver (Post 53585513)
The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.

Well, it's not like their costs totally disappear if there's no season. The only way they "win" is if they get a deal that gives them favorable financial terms.

EYEuhFRAYtee 08-15-2012 07:14 AM

locked out til mid December is my guess...

bonzilla 08-15-2012 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by txpd (Post 53589105)
snyder and the flyers v the predetors.

Alienater vs. Preditor

Mystlyfe 08-15-2012 12:53 PM

If you can balance revenue sharing with the expected growth in the league, it significantly waters down the ire from the "rich owners." Especially in a proposal where the players' cut is a flat rate. Basically the growth in the league, instead of being split between the "rich owners," "poor owners," and players ends up going to the poor owners while the rich owners maintain the profits.

The biggest problems in my mind is the term, the %s of HHR, and the option for the fourth year. No way the owners want to suddenly be hit by 57% going to the players three years from now, especially if the current growth is maintained.

brs03 08-15-2012 01:04 PM

That's basically my take on it as well. The PA's seeming amenability to reduced salary growth and maintenance of the cap are important, but a 3 year agreement will never fly.

I don't know, I guess the most realistic way to reconcile the needs of the poor owners with the needs of the rich owners (without totally reaming the players in the deal by slashing salaries by a ton) is to enact a revenue sharing system that gives the rich teams some sort of competitive advantage for subsidizing the poor, even if it's only a small one. Something akin to a luxury tax. Don't know how you do so while still keeping a truly hard cap, but I imagine they can come up with something.

Zoidberg Jesus 08-15-2012 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cleaver (Post 53585513)
The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.

It's the other way around - the small market teams stand to lose the most from a lockout. Without season, they've got to pay the lease and upkeep for the stadium and any other team facilities without any income whatsoever. And the dent a lockout puts in a fan base is much more pronounced and long lasting in a place like Phoenix or Columbus than it would be in Detroit or Toronto, where there's a line stretching out the door of people waiting to take any season tickets the disgruntled fans make available. Getting a lockout instead of increased revenue sharing could be life or death for the struggling franchises. They'll factor heavily into the discussion, I can guarantee that.

Mystlyfe 08-15-2012 01:37 PM

There are similar divisions within the players, though. Competing in a lesser league for a lesser salary for a year may be no big deal to guys making $4M a year, but to the grinders, fringe players, and young guys it's huge. I don't think Jay Beagle or Steven Kampfer will be very happy if they have to live off an AHL salary for a year. The window of an NHL career is pretty short, and missing a year of paychecks will really hurt some guys.

brs03 08-15-2012 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystlyfe (Post 53598617)
There are similar divisions within the players, though. Competing in a lesser league for a lesser salary for a year may be no big deal to guys making $4M a year, but to the grinders, fringe players, and young guys it's huge. I don't think Jay Beagle or Steven Kampfer will be very happy if they have to live off an AHL salary for a year. The window of an NHL career is pretty short, and missing a year of paychecks will really hurt some guys.

Although with the players it's a bit reversed on the reward side. The poor owners have the most at stake wrt the terms of the final deal. The low-end players have the least at stake (their salaries seem pretty stagnant regardless of the cap situation, and they aren't the target of long term deals).

Both groups would get screwed during a lockout, most likely. But for poor owners the only good outcome is a financial overhaul, for the low-end players any outcome in which they play a full(ish) season is probably a good one.

So what you might end up with is poor owners clamoring for a lessened financial burden, rich owners clamoring to avoid subsidizing poor owners, rich players clamoring to minimize their losses, and poor players saying "we don't care, just get *something* done." Could be a really interesting dynamic I think.

Zoidberg Jesus 08-15-2012 01:53 PM

Fun fact: 5 of the 31 player reps haven't signed yet (Alex Auld, Chris Campoli, Shane Doan, Dominic Moore, and Brandan Morrison). Also, none of them are Caps. And there are very few big name/big salary players.

Here's the list, for whoever's interested.

Mystlyfe 08-15-2012 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 53598821)
Although with the players it's a bit reversed on the reward side. The poor owners have the most at stake wrt the terms of the final deal. The low-end players have the least at stake (their salaries seem pretty stagnant regardless of the cap situation, and they aren't the target of long term deals).

They have little to gain, but they have a huge amount at stake when the negotiations start negating their paychecks.

brs03 08-15-2012 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mystlyfe (Post 53599675)
They have little to gain, but they have a huge amount at stake when the negotiations start negating their paychecks.

They're probably not the ones that'll be hurt by falling salaries, assuming there's no rollback. Their salaries really can't get much lower. So as long as they actually get to play they don't have much to lose or gain.

Mystlyfe 08-15-2012 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brs03 (Post 53600133)
They're probably not the ones that'll be hurt by falling salaries, assuming there's no rollback. Their salaries really can't get much lower. So as long as they actually get to play they don't have much to lose or gain.

By "negating their paychecks" I meant missing them because they're not playing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.