HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Negotiations

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-28-2012, 07:16 AM
  #1
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,596
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
CBA Negotiations

I figured I start a thread to track the progress of the negotiations since they are starting tomorrow. Does anyone have a list of potential sticking points?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
06-28-2012, 08:03 AM
  #2
4thline4life
The Mased God
 
4thline4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: n philly
Posts: 2,495
vCash: 500
-revenue sharing-currently the percentages breakdown to 57% players 43% ownesr....owners will most likely want it knocked down closer to 50-50

-cap floor- the cap floor increasing rapidly, hurts the smaller market teams...so they want to prevent it from rising

i'm sure player safety and on-ice stuff will be discussed but those are the two big ones i know

4thline4life is offline  
Old
06-28-2012, 09:58 AM
  #3
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,235
vCash: 500
Owners definitely aren't going to get it down to about 50/50.. Closest I see is 54/46 and that'd be with them giving up a concession like lower UFA age.

And the cap floor thing should be pretty easy to solve in my opinion..

Have a soft cap floor. I'll use 70 million as the ceiling

70 million is the ceiling.

The cap floor would be 1/2 of that, so 35 million, but if you are under 2/3rds of the ceiling, 46.9m, you don't qualify for revenue sharing.

Krishna is offline  
Old
06-28-2012, 10:14 AM
  #4
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,596
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
I'm hoping they get rid of the 35+ rule. I really don't understand how that made it into the last CBA. It seemingly hurts the players as much as it hurts the teams. Teams would be less likely to sign a 35+ guy to a multi-year deal and if they do, the teams get screwed if something goes wrong. I think it could be a better solution maybe to prevent more than a three year deal or something on guys 35 and older. That way people could still get signed but you wouldn't have a Kovalchuk deal with Dwayne Roloson or something.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
06-28-2012, 02:38 PM
  #5
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,319
vCash: 500
Any word on a bonus cushion?

FlyersFan61290 is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 12:13 AM
  #6
Sawdalite
AbleWasIEreISawLupul
 
Sawdalite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
I'm hoping they get rid of the 35+ rule. I really don't understand how that made it into the last CBA. It seemingly hurts the players as much as it hurts the teams. Teams would be less likely to sign a 35+ guy to a multi-year deal and if they do, the teams get screwed if something goes wrong. I think it could be a better solution maybe to prevent more than a three year deal or something on guys 35 and older. That way people could still get signed but you wouldn't have a Kovalchuk deal with Dwayne Roloson or something.
To me the 35+ Rule is very easy to correct and the correction would eliminate all the traps and Cap circumvention.

Fix A: Only one year contracts on player 35+ and movement eliminates Cap.

Fix B: Multi-year contracts allowed on 35+ with Cap based on salary paid per specific season rather than AAV and Retirement allowed/movement elimnates Cap.

Fix C: Organization option to take the AAV based 35+ and be as Current CBA risking carrying dead weight or having to LTI a player or Fix A/B whichever is adopted... Thus GMs can gamble reduced Cap with front-loaded to reduce Cap yet entice player or take the safe bet and risk losing a player to a gambling Organization's GM.

Fix D: Any of the other fixes, or Current 35+ Rule, with an age adjustment.


Personally I'd never risk carrying dead Cap with 35+ player if I had the option to avoid it... since retirement would never be an option on such Front-loaded contracts.

Furthermore... I believe they should penalize any front-loaded long-range where a player retires in-contract. Or they should eliminate all LONG-range front-loaded contracts period. Also, eliminating AAV based Cap hits and replacing with Salary based contracts would eliminate just about all circumvention... although it would also eliminate a great way to entice players to Big Market Organization.

Sawdalite is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 12:19 AM
  #7
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290 View Post
Any word on a bonus cushion?
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.

Now, to solve Cap Circumvension techniques, minimally they need to change the way cap hits are calculated. Something like this....

Quote:
Salary Cap hit is AAV or 80% of the highest year's salary, whichever is higher.
That would prevent those backend years from reducing the salary to such a large degree. They would probably need to allow previously signed contracts be grandfathered through or something.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 06:24 AM
  #8
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.

Now, to solve Cap Circumvension techniques, minimally they need to change the way cap hits are calculated. Something like this....



That would prevent those backend years from reducing the salary to such a large degree. They would probably need to allow previously signed contracts be grandfathered through or something.
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.

As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 10:55 AM
  #9
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
They haven't even begun negotiations yet. That said, I expect it goes back in.
yeah I know talks start at like 11am today or something. I was just wondering if anyone heard anything new on the subject. I too expect it in the new CBA but then again I really don't understand why it wasn't in the current CBA.

FlyersFan61290 is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 11:38 AM
  #10
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290 View Post
yeah I know talks start at like 11am today or something. I was just wondering if anyone heard anything new on the subject. I too expect it in the new CBA but then again I really don't understand why it wasn't in the current CBA.
It was in the current one, but the current one simply stated that you couldn't have a bonus cushion in the final year because there would be no way to properly apply any overage to the following year.

If you will recall, going into this season we had like 1.2M carried over on our cap due to bonuses that were paid out in 2010. Chicago had the same thing and that's what forced them to trade Buff and Ladd to then Atlanta.

Because their was no CBA to apply cap penalties/overages to next year, all possible achievable bonuses were applied until they no longer could be achieved... ie Schenn couldn't play all 82 after he was put in the AHL for a week.

Long and short of it... current CBA had a bonus cushion and penalty system. Because the penalty system couldn't be verified, the cushion did not apply in 2011-2012. There is zero reason to expect that the cushion gets eliminated in 2012-2013 as it tends to benefit both sides by keep guaranteed dollars low for managers, but allowing young players/aged vets to achieve higher salaries.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 11:41 AM
  #11
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,596
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawdalite View Post
To me the 35+ Rule is very easy to correct and the correction would eliminate all the traps and Cap circumvention.

Fix A: Only one year contracts on player 35+ and movement eliminates Cap.

Fix B: Multi-year contracts allowed on 35+ with Cap based on salary paid per specific season rather than AAV and Retirement allowed/movement elimnates Cap.
Those are fixes for sure, but it doesn't really do anything. Might as well get rid of it entirely at that point (which I'd be fine with). No way players agree to the deal allowing 35+ players only getting one year deals, and the second option essentially the same thing as not having a the rule at all, you just wouldn't be able to front load the contracts.

Quote:
Fix C: Organization option to take the AAV based 35+ and be as Current CBA risking carrying dead weight or having to LTI a player or Fix A/B whichever is adopted... Thus GMs can gamble reduced Cap with front-loaded to reduce Cap yet entice player or take the safe bet and risk losing a player to a gambling Organization's GM.
So is this fix to just leave it the way it is or allow the team to pick a different option? Still wouldn't make much sense.

Quote:
Fix D: Any of the other fixes, or Current 35+ Rule, with an age adjustment.
This would make sense, making it like a 38+ or something like that. I think that would be pretty solid or just put a limit on length of the deal to like three or four years or something like that to avoid the super long ones and leave the rules in place the way they are otherwise. Or just get rid of it all together.

Quote:
Furthermore... I believe they should penalize any front-loaded long-range where a player retires in-contract. Or they should eliminate all LONG-range front-loaded contracts period. Also, eliminating AAV based Cap hits and replacing with Salary based contracts would eliminate just about all circumvention... although it would also eliminate a great way to entice players to Big Market Organization.
Yeah they definitely need to do something with these 500 year contracts. They are getting pretty extreme and annoying.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
06-29-2012, 12:29 PM
  #12
FlyersFan61290
Registered User
 
FlyersFan61290's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 9,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
It was in the current one, but the current one simply stated that you couldn't have a bonus cushion in the final year because there would be no way to properly apply any overage to the following year.

If you will recall, going into this season we had like 1.2M carried over on our cap due to bonuses that were paid out in 2010. Chicago had the same thing and that's what forced them to trade Buff and Ladd to then Atlanta.

Because their was no CBA to apply cap penalties/overages to next year, all possible achievable bonuses were applied until they no longer could be achieved... ie Schenn couldn't play all 82 after he was put in the AHL for a week.

Long and short of it... current CBA had a bonus cushion and penalty system. Because the penalty system couldn't be verified, the cushion did not apply in 2011-2012. There is zero reason to expect that the cushion gets eliminated in 2012-2013 as it tends to benefit both sides by keep guaranteed dollars low for managers, but allowing young players/aged vets to achieve higher salaries.
thanks for the reply and explanation

FlyersFan61290 is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 09:13 PM
  #13
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,235
vCash: 500
Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

Hilarious for number 1.

My thoughts


1. Ridiculous. Do 55/45 and Min salary goes up to 650k or so
2. I've always liked it being after your 2nd contract. 3rd if you have a one year deal in there
3. That's actually good.. Though 7 would be a little better
4. Terrible
5. I'd be for this if the max salary for ELCs was scaled the way the NBA has it

Krishna is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 09:16 PM
  #14
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 500
Just posturing. Take it with a grain of salt. Your first proposal is never anything other than setting the terms to argue over.

I bet they extend the current CBA by September.

Broad Street Elite is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 10:23 PM
  #15
CTU2fan
Registered User
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.

As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.
35+ was put in to put a drag on those deals, basically, like the cap itself, to protect owners from themselves. Pre-lockout under the prior CBA guys weren't hitting UFA until they reached their 30s, and those players were being comparatively overpaid because they were the only guys hitting the market, since RFA in the NHL isn't really free agency at all between punitive compensation and right to match. So ownership saw these big contracts to aging players as a problem, and put the rule in to try to keep the AAV and term down on those deals by sticking clubs with the cap hit no matter what.

CTU2fan is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:15 AM
  #16
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
I agree that they will/should grandfather the current contracts that are frontloaded heavily.

As far as the +35 rule, what was the reason for it in the first place? They must have done it because of something so whatever that was, it needs to be addressed.
They did it to discourage deals like Pronger's that are frontloaded with bogus years at the end to circumvent the cap. Only it doesn't work when a GM does not understand the rule.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:35 AM
  #17
Damaged Goods
Registered User
 
Damaged Goods's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 2,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA.

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.
Awful. These are all non-starters from the NHLPA's perspective, I presume.

I think these would be some reasonable compromises:

1. 53-55% revenue split
2. 7 seasons before UFA
3. No changes to arbitration
4. Contracts limited to 8 years
5. ELC's extended from 3 to 4 years unless a player reaches "super" status (a la "super twos" in MLB)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
They did it to discourage deals like Pronger's that are frontloaded with bogus years at the end to circumvent the cap. Only it doesn't work when a GM does not understand the rule.
:

Damaged Goods is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 08:13 AM
  #18
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,528
vCash: 500
Hilarious. The owners want protection against themselves is what it comes down to. This time, they're dealing with Fehr and he won't back down.

MsWoof is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:05 AM
  #19
Spongolium*
Potato Magician
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bridgend,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 8,653
vCash: 500
It really is pathetic when a season can be cancelled because of people with a mental attitude of a 6 year old.

You don't see this in any other sport outside of America.

Spongolium* is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 10:12 AM
  #20
BleedOrange
BuildThroughTheDraft
 
BleedOrange's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oshawa Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,147
vCash: 500
Its the first offer from the owners throwing **** at the walk and see if they get lucky happens all the time..

BleedOrange is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 11:08 AM
  #21
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,591
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
I bet they extend the current CBA by September.
Why wouldn't they do this? Does either side gain an upper hand if this happens? It's so stupid to lose games and fans if you don't really have to.

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 11:11 AM
  #22
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.

The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:13 PM
  #23
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,596
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.

The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......
I don't think it was that extreme last time or will be this time (if it was/is then the NHLPA would have a pretty good lawsuit going for them). I read somewhere they were thinking about renewing this current CBA for a year to avoid a lockout and negotiating a new one in the mean-time. I can't imagine either side wants to risk another lockout when the NHL is just starting to begin to be relevant again (in the USA). Too much risk involved on both sides. If they miss the season again, I really don't think the NHL could recover in regards to the casual fans and new fans that have sprung up in recent years.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 05:53 PM
  #24
pughater
Registered User
 
pughater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: montgomery county
Posts: 998
vCash: 500
ill be pissed as heck if there isnt hockey this year again !. season tickets will be useless!

pughater is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 07:57 PM
  #25
CTU2fan
Registered User
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,150
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
This is going to get ugly real fast. Some say that this is just a tactic, but when negotiations for the last CBA took place, the NHL didn't budge from their stance on anything. That's the way to look at this. They aren't going to budge on a reduction of the revenue split between owners and players. They aren't going to budge on free agency. They aren't going to budge on redefining hockey revenue. They aren't going to budge on entry level contracts and actual contract lengths.

The last time around, the owners wanted cost certainty. They got it. The last time around, they wanted entry level contracts limited. They got it. The last time around, in order to achieve a bonus, you had to basically tear up the record books. They got it. This isn't about negotiations anymore. This is about dictating to the players what the owners want. The owners can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know about anyone else, but I called this the last time when the last CBA was signed - this was never a partnership and that the next CBA negotiations, owners were going to demand even more concessions from the players. We're witnessing it. I hope nobody expects the owners to move from their demands because they certainly didn't the last time around.......
Couldn't agree more. Last time they killed a whole season and got put on pedestals because of how well they did and how they killed the players. Now here we are again and the CBA they wanted, that they utterly killed the NHLPA on, apparently still isn't good enough. Our only hope is that the competitive owners can create some dissention; it's frustrating when these things come up and we're all at the mercy not of the owners as a group, but that faction of cheap owners of poorly run franchises in crap markets who seem to think the weak should be setting the pace.

CTU2fan is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.