HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Pittsburgh Penguins (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   New CBA discussion thread (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1317389)

shureshot66 01-06-2013 06:00 PM

New CBA discussion thread
 
Thankfully we no longer need the sticky. But here's a reference guide to the biggest changes that are coming with the new CBA, which is in the process of being ratified.

Quote:

--Ten-year term with an opt-out at eight years.

--Year 2 salary cap at $64.3 million, with the floor at $44 million.

-- Seven-year term limit for NHL player contracts (eight years if player is re-signing with his own team).

-- Salary variance: No more than 35 percent year-over-year and no year less than 50 percent of the highest year.

-- Teams will have up to two compliance buyouts to use prior to the 2013-14 season but not before this June.

-- Start of free agency remains July 1 for Years 2 through 10. (obviously because of the late start, free agency will begin later this year.)

-- Draft lottery system changes in order to allow all 14 teams that missed the playoffs a crack at the No. 1 overall pick.
Key points taken from Pierre LeBrun's summary here.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 01-06-2013 06:19 PM

As a "union guy", this was the one thing I wanted most for the NHLPA moving forward:

Quote:

The $64.3 million figure is symbolic for the players, as it is the same amount that last year’s salary cap was set at. This was about not going down one cent. Pretty impressive resolve by the players to refuse to move south of $64.3 million and drag the league kicking and screaming up to that figure.
No employees should have to take less money than they earned the year before when their employers are boasting about record revenues at every opoortunity. Glad to hear they hung tough on that one issue, even though the NHL got what they wanted on most others.

Gallatin 01-06-2013 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57210603)
As a "union guy", this was the one thing I wanted most for the NHLPA moving forward:



No employees should have to take less money than they earned the year before when their employers are boasting about record revenues at every opoortunity. Glad to hear they hung tough on that one issue, even though the NHL got what they wanted on most others.

I was a Kelly man and thought the season was at risk from the moment they stabbed him in the back one early morning.

The moment I heard Fear was consulting, I knew he was going to be the guy. It was just too obvious.

I am just really glad we got a half season out of this. I always respected Fear's abilities, and feared The BOG & Betteman did not. Looks like I was wrong, they gave up more than I thought they would to the PA.

Really was surprised the NHL gave in on the Pension. They really wanted to play the games more than anticipated.

Jaded-Fan 01-06-2013 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57210603)
As a "union guy", this was the one thing I wanted most for the NHLPA moving forward:



No employees should have to take less money than they earned the year before when their employers are boasting about record revenues at every opoortunity. Glad to hear they hung tough on that one issue, even though the NHL got what they wanted on most others.

I am not sure how anyone can/could be a 'union' or 'owner' guy. Unless you are one of the two.

I always have been a 'fans' and 'the sport' guy. Most often the union position would be further from what I percieved as best for the game, particularly when they try and weaken the cap/floor. But my interest always was the game first, Pittsburgh in particular second, the fans overall third. How the owners and players treat each other is their concern not mine. Unless they want to send some of that money my way.

Ogrezilla 01-06-2013 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan (Post 57218323)
I am not sure how anyone can/could be a 'union' or 'owner' guy. Unless you are one of the two.

I always have been a 'fans' and 'the sport' guy. Most often the union position would be further from what I percieved as best for the game, particularly when they try and weaken the cap/floor. But my interest always was the game first, Pittsburgh in particular second, the fans overall third. How the owners and players treat each other is their concern not mine. Unless they want to send some of that money my way.

I feel like he's talking more about unions in general.

Jaded-Fan 01-06-2013 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogrezilla (Post 57218407)
I feel like he's talking more about unions in general.

Heh. I have strong opinions on that as well, but that is for the political discussion forum. I will just assume this is solely hockey related and my thoughts stand. Especially since many here have taken strong hockey owner and union stances here over the years. Like I said, unless they want to share their money with me, as far as I am concerned that is their issue, and does not concern me. I only care that the integrety of the game, and a level ice surface for all teams, be maintained by any of their negotiations. Whatever they decide other than that I could care less about.

Harv 01-06-2013 09:16 PM

I'm glad we locked Crosby up while we did.

Seeing as Geno will be 28 when his deal is up, locking him up for another 8 puts him at 36.

Shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Jaded-Fan 01-06-2013 09:20 PM

As an aside, here is another reason why anyone who claims that the Pens have a bad fan base who be kicked in the nuts with a rusty skate. According to an ESPN poll PA and Minn. are the only states at all excited about hockey returning:

http://imgur.com/zTKhV

Very excited actually as opposed to 'not interested'

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 01-06-2013 09:27 PM

I support unions in general, and that includes the NHLPA. Like I said, no employee should have to take a pay cut when their employers are boasting of record revenues, especially after the last CBA was dictated by the owners and supposed to address these problems. The whole idea is absurd to me. I know there were a few organizations in dire straits financially, but I don't think it was near as many as was being made out as there are well-known ways to report major losses without actually experiencing any (which I had referenced in an earlier thread).

The money issues of the few problem clubs could've been solved by further revenue sharing, but the big dogs didn't want to give up more of their pie, so they put the clamps to the workers. I'm glad that the union got a pitbull like Fehr so they didn't get taken to the woodshed.

My desire to see people get their fair share trumped my desire to watch hockey - though if it had been up to the players, we wouldn't have missed a single game of hockey yet. The fact that everyone involved makes exponentially more money than I do doesn't bother me at all. They worked hard and have specialized skills that earned them that money.

/unionrant ;)

Ogrezilla 01-06-2013 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57219117)
I support unions in general, and that includes the NHLPA. Like I said, no employee should have to take a pay cut when their employers are boasting of record revenues, especially after the last CBA was dictated by the owners and supposed to address these problems. The whole idea is absurd to me. I know there were a few organizations in dire straits financially, but I don't think it was near as many as was being made out as there are well-known ways to report major losses without actually experiencing any (which I had referenced in an earlier thread).

The money issues of the few problem clubs could've been solved by further revenue sharing, but the big dogs didn't want to give up more of their pie, so they put the clamps to the workers. I'm glad that the union got a pitbull like Fehr so they didn't get taken to the woodshed.

My desire to see people get their fair share trumped my desire to watch hockey - though if it had been up to the players, we wouldn't have missed a single game of hockey yet. The fact that everyone involved makes exponentially more money than I do doesn't bother me at all. They worked hard and have specialized skills that earned them that money.

/unionrant ;)

If I wasn't in a union, I wouldn't have lost my job at the end of the school year. Seniority is the dumbest thing ever.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 01-06-2013 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogrezilla (Post 57219327)
If I wasn't in a union, I wouldn't have lost my job at the end of the school year. Seniority is the dumbest thing ever.

We could have a discussion about unions in general, but we'd get a bit further off-topic.

I don't think seniority is an issue in the NHLPA, so I'll leave it at that. :)

Valarukar 01-06-2013 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ogrezilla (Post 57219327)
If I wasn't in a union, I wouldn't have lost my job at the end of the school year. Seniority is the dumbest thing ever.

Sorry to hear that, and I agree with you and will leave it at that lol.

Ogrezilla 01-06-2013 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57219421)
We could have a discussion about unions in general, but we'd get a bit further off-topic.

I don't think seniority is an issue in the NHLPA, so I'll leave it at that. :)

psh, seniority gets them their own hotel rooms. I call bs :laugh:

PensFanSince1989 01-06-2013 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57210603)
As a "union guy", this was the one thing I wanted most for the NHLPA moving forward:



No employees should have to take less money than they earned the year before when their employers are boasting about record revenues at every opoortunity. Glad to hear they hung tough on that one issue, even though the NHL got what they wanted on most others.

The Salary Cap being the same does not mean their pay will be the same. They will still just get 50% of the revenue + their make whole payments. Players will likely lose a lot of money to escrow. And Record Revenue =/= record profit. The salary cap being high is simply to not screw over the players who happen to be UFA's next off season. It will likely be artificially high (and thus, players as mentioned will lose a lot to escrow)

ColePens 01-06-2013 10:18 PM

I feel this is the right thread to put this:

I'm quite shocked at how crazy Pittsburgh went today w/ the lockout signing. I know I have a hockey family so it meant a lot here, but people on the streets, in the mall, etc. were all talking about it. It was the buzz around the city. I'm proud of that. I thought it'd take awhile to get the newer fans of casual fans back in it.

I'm glad this **** is over.

Captain Hook 01-06-2013 10:22 PM

Not everybody is getting Crosby, Malkin Letang etc. back. We are pretty spoiled and that's part of it. So are the Wild because of the Parise and Suter signings. I'm not surprised those two cities are excited. Although I would have thought a few more places would have been excited too.

Harv 01-06-2013 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColePens (Post 57221307)
I feel this is the right thread to put this:

I'm quite shocked at how crazy Pittsburgh went today w/ the lockout signing. I know I have a hockey family so it meant a lot here, but people on the streets, in the mall, etc. were all talking about it. It was the buzz around the city. I'm proud of that. I thought it'd take awhile to get the newer fans of casual fans back in it.

Let's not go crazy here. If the Steelers were playing today it'd be a different story.

StoneColdFlower* 01-06-2013 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57210603)
As a "union guy", this was the one thing I wanted most for the NHLPA moving forward:



No employees should have to take less money than they earned the year before when their employers are boasting about record revenues at every opoortunity. Glad to hear they hung tough on that one issue, even though the NHL got what they wanted on most others.

It's kind of a three-front conflict though, in that you'll never find a way to make the big markets, the small markets, and the PA happy. The NHL needs teems in a lot of markets that may "suck" now if it hopes to grow the game and become a media powerhouse as opposed to a gate-driven league. That's why, as much as it may suck for myself and for other Canadians, and as much as it may feel unfair to us, there will only ever be so many NHL teams in Canada. The NHL feels that it will gain more by creating new demand in the United States (and in the process, more lucrative TV programs) than by accommodating existing demand in Canada, where yes, there may be more demand for hockey tickets than the supply currently allows, but where there is a less potential for growing TV ratings, Centre Ice buys, and merchandise sales by adding new teams.

The problem in emerging American markets in the Sunbelt, West, and lower-midwest, however, is that fans will never give a **** about these teams if they are not supported by the league, especially given that hockey lacks a strong cultural presence once you get more than a handful of hours from the Canadian border. To support these teams, you need to devise strategies that will attract quality ownership groups and that will ensure that fans there are provided with a quality product, win or lose. The best way to ensure that these these teams have stable ownership and that they are at least somewhat competitive is to guarantee that as long as the team is managed competently from a financial and hockey perspective, any owner will be offered a guaranteed return on their investment and any fan will be offered a quality product so long as the NHL feels that the market in question is part of the league's growth strategy. That's the difference between having teams owned by Paul Allen, Ted Turner, or Mark Cuban and teams owned by Boots Del Baggio or ASG. That's why the NHL needs the level of revenue sharing that the NBA and the NFL. The problem is that revenue is so concentrated among a few clubs that their owners or the shareholders of their parent companies do not want to make the sort of sacrifices needed to maintain a stable league. Unable to win revenue sharing from the big markets, the small markets have to settle for driving labour costs down to survive, which you either limit via a salary floor or you let these teams pay peanuts, attract mediocre talent, and continue to be ignored by people who have not yet be sold on hockey and probably never will be if the product is **** in their market. The other problem with having a salary cap linked to aggregate league revenue and limited revenue sharing (relative to the other NA sports leagues) is that it creates these perverse incentives. Why does a team like Florida want its payroll costs driven by $1,000,000 by the extra revenue gained by a deep Toronto playoff run? My best guess would be that they sure as **** don't.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 01-06-2013 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PenguinPower420 (Post 57222693)
It's kind of a three-front conflict though, in that you'll never find a way to make the big markets, the small markets, and the PA happy. The NHL needs teems in a lot of markets that may "suck" now if it hopes to grow the game and become a media powerhouse as opposed to a gate-driven league. That's why, as much as it may suck for myself and for other Canadians, and as much as it may feel unfair to us, there will only ever be so many NHL teams in Canada. The NHL feels that it will gain more by creating new demand in the United States (and in the process, more lucrative TV programs) than by accommodating existing demand in Canada, where yes, there may be more demand for hockey tickets than the supply currently allows, but where there is a less potential for growing TV ratings, Centre Ice buys, and merchandise sales by adding new teams.

The problem in emerging American markets in the Sunbelt, West, and lower-midwest, however, is that fans will never give a **** about these teams if they are not supported by the league, especially given that hockey lacks a strong cultural presence once you get more than a handful of hours from the Canadian border. To support these teams, you need to devise strategies that will attract quality ownership groups and that will ensure that fans there are provided with a quality product, win or lose. The best way to ensure that these these teams have stable ownership and that they are at least somewhat competitive is to guarantee that as long as the team is managed competently from a financial and hockey perspective, any owner will be offered a guaranteed return on their investment and any fan will be offered a quality product so long as the NHL feels that the market in question is part of the league's growth strategy. That's the difference between having teams owned by Paul Allen, Ted Turner, or Mark Cuban and teams owned by Boots Del Baggio or ASG. That's why the NHL needs the level of revenue sharing that the NBA and the NFL. The problem is that revenue is so concentrated among a few clubs that their owners or the shareholders of their parent companies do not want to make the sort of sacrifices needed to maintain a stable league. Unable to win revenue sharing from the big markets, the small markets have to settle for driving labour costs down to survive, which you either limit via a salary floor or you let these teams pay peanuts, attract mediocre talent, and continue to be ignored by people who have not yet be sold on hockey and probably never will be if the product is **** in their market. The other problem with having a salary cap linked to aggregate league revenue and limited revenue sharing (relative to the other NA sports leagues) is that it creates these perverse incentives. Why does a team like Florida want its payroll costs driven by $1,000,000 by the extra revenue gained by a deep Toronto playoff run? My best guess would be that they sure as **** don't.

If the NHL feels they need the money pit markets, they shouldn't expect to support them out of the players' share. It is not the players' responsibility to fund money losing ventures in order to "grow the game" at some vague, undetermined future time.

Either get it done via revenue sharing or dream a little smaller until the markets can support teams on their own merits.

Otherwise, the players' share is just going to dwindle every CBA like clockwork, because like you say, when salary is linked to aggregate league revenue, the cap is going to trend upward and the have-nots are always going to struggle to make ends meet. The league as a whole will continue to make money hand over fist and still cry that they need a bigger share.

Sidney the Kidney 01-07-2013 12:07 AM

That change to the draft lottery system could be interesting. You could see a team that barely misses out on making the playoffs, finishing with 95+ points, end up drafting first overall. That's pretty intriguing when you think about it.

Jaded-Fan 01-07-2013 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57224623)
If the NHL feels they need the money pit markets, they shouldn't expect to support them out of the players' share. It is not the players' responsibility to fund money losing ventures in order to "grow the game" at some vague, undetermined future time.

Either get it done via revenue sharing or dream a little smaller until the markets can support teams on their own merits.

Otherwise, the players' share is just going to dwindle every CBA like clockwork, because like you say, when salary is linked to aggregate league revenue, the cap is going to trend upward and the have-nots are always going to struggle to make ends meet. The league as a whole will continue to make money hand over fist and still cry that they need a bigger share.

That is ridiculous.

If the 2005 strike, and resulting enormous growth of the game after the new CBA was signed, showed anything it was that for the players splitting 57% (now 50%) of a much larger pie is better than splitting a greater percentage of nothing. The game grew because of the cap and floor in my opinion. So the players benefit when the game grows, and have a direct interest in growing the game. They will pocket half the growth directly in revenue sharing and even when retired the retirement package is better if the game is healthier. That is on the money side. How about the job side? Eliminate markets and you eliminate jobs. Nothing effects the players more than that. Ron Burkle loses a write off in growing the game in places like Phoenix, 25 or so players end up on unemployment. Big difference in actual benefits, no? If the players are going to benefit they should share the cost.

The long and short of it is that if they are not morons, they do care if the league grows.

MetalheadPenguinsFan 01-07-2013 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harv (Post 57218709)
I'm glad we locked Crosby up while we did.

Seeing as Geno will be 28 when his deal is up, locking him up for another 8 puts him at 36.

Shouldn't be that much of a problem.

This might be a silly question and I wholeheartedly apologize if it is but with this 7 year term thing...how long do we have Sid for??

Seven years??? Or for the full 12 year contract he signed last June???

Jaded-Fan 01-07-2013 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetalheadPenguinsFan (Post 57225677)
This might be a silly question and I wholeheartedly apologize if it is but with this 7 year term thing...how long do we have Sid for??

Seven years??? Or for the full 12 year contract he signed last June???

I assumed all those contracts were grandfathered. No one has said otherwise and it would have been big news I would think.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 01-07-2013 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaded-Fan (Post 57225377)
That is ridiculous.

If the 2005 strike, and resulting enormous growth of the game after the new CBA was signed, showed anything it was that for the players splitting 57% (now 50%) of a much larger pie is better than splitting a greater percentage of nothing. The game grew because of the cap and floor in my opinion. So the players benefit when the game grows, and have a direct interest in growing the game. They will pocket half the growth directly in revenue sharing and even when retired the retirement package is better if the game is healthier. That is on the money side. How about the job side? Eliminate markets and you eliminate jobs. Nothing effects the players more than that. Ron Burkle loses a write off in growing the game in places like Phoenix, 25 or so players end up on unemployment. Big difference in actual benefits, no? If the players are going to benefit they should share the cost.

The long and short of it is that if they are not morons, they do care if the league grows.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

As for supporting the money pit markets, I think it's very much in question whether that will help the bottom line. The reasoning used to be that presence in big non-traditional markets would grow the game by earning a fat TV contract, as PenguinPower420 pointed out. That never materialized.

I guess the players are just supposed to wait, open their wallets, and take Bettman's word for it.

Jaded-Fan 01-07-2013 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rowdy Roddy Peeper (Post 57225925)
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.

As for supporting the money pit markets, I think it's very much in question whether that will help the bottom line. The reasoning used to be that presence in big non-traditional markets would grow the game by earning a fat TV contract, as PenguinPower420 pointed out. That never materialized.

I guess the players are just supposed to wait, open their wallets, and take Bettman's word for it.

Ideally they would have a say in some of these decisions. Whether they did or not though I would bet dimes to dollars very few would be calling for the elimination of all those jobs, even if they have to pay a share of the cost of the investment. Players hate the loss of jobs through the elimination of markets more than anything.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:58 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.