View Single Post
12-09-2012, 11:44 AM
Kriss E
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 34,131
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DAChampion View Post

I need to take a break, thus, I'll take a break. I'll end up on a positive note by writing out what I think would be a fair CBA.

1) Owners want the players to take 50% rather than 57%, over an 8+2 year term.

As this is still a financial concession worth ~1 billion dollars from the players; the NHLPA would be compensated with temporary exclusive renewal power over the CBA once it is over. It would be an 8+2+2 term, with the NHLPA having the power to renew the CBA up to four years. This would also allay's Fehr's concern that kids now 13 years old should not be ruled by the current CBA.

Further, the NHL would increase revenue sharing. It should, at a minimum, scale with total league revenue.

2) Owners want to rollback existing contracts
If the owners do not agree to a 100% make-whole, then players on rolled-back contracts should be entitled to walk away from their contracts and declare themselves UFAs.

3) The NHL wants 5-year contract limits and salary variation limits.
In return, the players need to get something else. A good idea might be a trade limit, that a team can average no more than 1 outgoing and 1 incoming player per year, with some reasonable limits in case of injuries. Alternatively, the no-trade clause can be made universal for contracts of duration 2 years or shorter.

Alternatively, every player who is traded would be given a $500,000 compensation for relocation, at the owners expense and not counting towards the cap.

Contracts longer than 5 years would be allowed with the caveat that it would be 5 UFA years; so an RFA could sign a 9 year contract if it is his second contract, as in 5 UFA years and 4 RFA years. This would allow team-building. The fact is, for example, that the 6-year contracts the Habs have with Gorges, Price, Pacioretty are a two-way street. They benefit both sides... Habs management benefits from long-term security.

On salary variation limits. If it becomes impossible to front-load contracts, then the age 35 retirement rule should be dropped as it would no longer be necessary and all it does is encourage discrimination against 35+ players.

4) Owners want the UFA age to be 28 rather than 27.
OK, but players no longer on entry-level contracts are grandfathered to the age 27 rule. For players who end up on the age 28 rule, they will now receive better salaries as RFAs -- the NHL should agree to reduce the outrageous compensation packages for offer sheets.


Overall, I think such a package would be a generous balance of give and take by both sides. It would be good the growth of the game, induce more stability, good team-building, and be good for parity. However, I think the owners would reject because it is constructed on the logic of give and take.
1) The excuse that the 13 yo kids shouldn't be affected by this CBA is ridiculous. Btw, didn't you say you wanted the players to sign a long term CBA? Agree on a good deal, and make it long. Didn't you say something along those lines?
Let's just re-new it every two years that way every rookie or sophomore will get to negotiate on early and won't be affected from any previous deals.

2) I can agree with that.

3) Not sure why there should be a trade limit. It's not like every team makes a trade every year anyways. Also, sometimes, players want to get traded. If an owner already made a move, then that player would be screwed. This doesn't really make sense for either the players or the owners.
Also, I'd like to know how you rounded up a 500K figure as relocation compensation.

4) That depends on just how far back you want to drop the compensation from an offer sheet.

Originally Posted by ECWHSWI View Post
and owners will still make billions, and I dont see many complaining about them being Billionnaires.
Which is why they have the upper hand. Owners are still making money from their other sources of revenue. Players, unless they invested their cash smartly (which, according to DAChampion, is not the case), aren't bringing in anything.

It's not because they still make millions (not billions) yearly, that they shouldn't want a 50-50 split. Seems only fair to me.

Kriss E is offline