HFBoards

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

All CBA talk goes here (NHL offers 50/50 deal - 82 game deadline passed)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2012, 02:41 PM
  #101
Armond White
Go Sabres!
 
Armond White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oakland Zoo
Country: United States
Posts: 10,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I wonder what the Pegula affect will be on the owners. Pegula is very pro player, I would think he would be against a lockout. It would be awesome if Pegula steps up here and helps get a deal done and the players know he is the reason why.
Pegula would just form his own mini-league and host games at First Niagara Center.

Armond White is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 02:57 PM
  #102
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armond White View Post
Pegula would just form his own mini-league and host games at First Niagara Center.
Oh, this is how we win a cup.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 03:06 PM
  #103
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
I wonder what the Pegula affect will be on the owners. Pegula is very pro player, I would think he would be against a lockout. It would be awesome if Pegula steps up here and helps get a deal done and the players know he is the reason why.
I could see Pegula being the Bob Kraft if you will of the negotiations. Because to him it's more about hockey than business, so he'd be willing to do whatever if it gets the games on the ice.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 03:08 PM
  #104
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
I could see Pegula being the Bob Kraft if you will of the negotiations. Because to him it's more about hockey than business, so he'd be willing to do whatever if it gets the games on the ice.
Thats kind of what Im thinking. IMO this is a huge time for Pegula to step up and become a major factor in the NHL. I even heard him say he bought that sports agency to learn more about the business of sports. Maybe he was preparing himself.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 03:23 PM
  #105
Afino
The Juice
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Orchard Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 21,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless Ike View Post
If we reduce the players percentage to 47%, and reduce the gross that the percentage comes from, we're talking about serious reduction in salaries, right?
Heard the NHL's planned 12-13 cap is something like $52m, so yeah.

Quote:
At some point doesn't that bring NHL salaries down a bit too close to KHL salaries for comfort?
That's exactly the fear a lot of pro-player sides are saying right now - the KHL has to be THRILLED about this.

Afino is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 03:37 PM
  #106
SabresAreScaryGood
Win jack for Jack!
 
SabresAreScaryGood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,801
vCash: 500
I didnt think it was possible a couple months ago, but an Amnesty Clause seems like something I think the NHL would have to have if they lower the cap.

SabresAreScaryGood is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 04:27 PM
  #107
jfb392
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Afino View Post
Heard the NHL's planned 12-13 cap is something like $52m, so yeah.
Craig Button says $54.2m upper limit and $42.2m floor, but I have it at $53.65m based on everything I have available to me.

Quote:
That's exactly the fear a lot of pro-player sides are saying right now - the KHL has to be THRILLED about this.
Meh, they have a salary cap too and it's $36.5m, so $54m isn't really close.

They have the exemption for returning Russian NHL'ers, but that wouldn't apply to most NHL'ers.

jfb392 is offline  
Old
07-15-2012, 11:32 PM
  #108
Endless Ike
Registered User
 
Endless Ike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfb392 View Post
Craig Button says $54.2m upper limit and $42.2m floor, but I have it at $53.65m based on everything I have available to me.

Meh, they have a salary cap too and it's $36.5m, so $54m isn't really close.

They have the exemption for returning Russian NHL'ers, but that wouldn't apply to most NHL'ers.
Russian Income tax is a flat 13%, most NHLers probably face around 30%, closing the gap further by a significant margin. Thrown in those exemptions for the 4 or 5% of players which are russian, and we're pretty much neck and neck.

it's not hard to see how something like this could become a virtuous cycle for the KHL. Relative salary parity leads to many europeans staying closer to home, leads to better overall on-ice product, leads to more international interest, leads to more money, leads to higher salary cap leads to even greater salary parity. If the NHL goes through with this for any reason other than franchises are at risk of failing, its outrageously stupid.


Last edited by Endless Ike: 07-15-2012 at 11:38 PM.
Endless Ike is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:08 AM
  #109
enrothorne
A DJ saved my life
 
enrothorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Downtown Buffalo
Country: Germany
Posts: 2,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to enrothorne
Fine, go play in the KHL. It wouldn't bother me one bit if half of the league left for the KHL. Maybe then the players that play here actually want to play here instead of just being here for the paycheck.

enrothorne is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:23 AM
  #110
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,804
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Everyone is aware of this and most people have mentioned it alongside their criticisms. However, contrary to popular belief, negotiations do not require two sides come in with ridiculous demands to then barter down to sanity from.
Your subjectivity and biases pervade your entire post. Anyways, initial collective-bargaining proposals are almost always one-sided proposals representing everything the party proposing wants, and then some. There's also an element of strategy to it, as well. You create as many bargaining chips as possible, and you determine when you're going to use each chip. Also, it's a sad truth in America that this is how people bargain: they anchor themselves to extreme proposals and negotiate from there. Do I wish it wasn't like this? Of course. But that's just the way it is now, and I'm sure the players are going to ask for the same or a better deal than they have now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
The league's demands are very much insulting to the players for many reasons as I've mentioned in earlier posts: the players gave them their cap and now the first thing they do in the first formal negotiations since that agreement is to demand the return of those benefits. In some cases these roll back benefits even beyond what they were before the league's consolation concessions of the last CBA.
Oh, those poor players. They submitted to a CBA they hate so much that they extended it twice and would operate under it for time immemorial if they had their way. Let's all feel bad for those poor players who worked under obscene working conditions since 2005-06.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
Take a more typical 'working class' company/union relationship for example.
No, let's not, because player/management bargaining relationships in the professional sports context is not analogous to "typical" union/management relationships in the private sector. Professional athletes have leverage and bargaining power in a way that hotel employees and janitors can only dream of. Professional athletes cannot be adequately replaced. It's much easier to replace a grocery store cashier.

The players wield significant power this time around, and will not be steamrolled. This is not a situation analogous to "typical" bargaining relationships.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
A bitter labor dispute wherein the company demanded and won major wage decreases gives in return several concessions as a consolation and to ensure these wage decreases can win out. At the very next labor negotiations they demand further wage decrease and the return of all these concessions, in some cases to less than they were in the first place. All this after posting record profits each year under that previous agreement. That's not an insult? That is not a surefire way to start off on the bitter foot?
You're again operating from a premise that the most recent CBA was terrible for the players. Time has judged that agreement to be extremely beneficial for the players, as evidenced by the union's extension of the agreement on multiple occasions. And we all know the players would love to continue operating under the current agreement. As it turns out, it was a great deal for the players.

But you want management to take the bargaining table a philosophy that since they were the perceived winners the last time at the bargaining table, they should be "nicer" with their proposals this time around. Come on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
This isn't reading too much into anything. Everyone knows full well the league isn't going to get these things and that's no the point. They're simultaneously insulting the opposition while increasing the likelihood of the season being disturbed. They could just as easily put forth reasonable demands, as they're the side actually making demands in the first place.
Who's insulted? You? Some other posters? Talking heads? Who's the arbiter or reasonableness? You?

You want this to be a simple issue, but it isn't. There's far too much strategy and cat-and-mouse to these negotiations. Of course they're not going to get concessions to this extent. Of course the union isn't going to get anything close to what their initial offer will be. But, this is the process, whether you like it or not. All the hand-wringing is the only thing that's "ridiculous" about the past three days.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 10:34 AM
  #111
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by enrothorne View Post
As profitable as it is now? No. But more than closing up shop. And nobody says you cant cross the picket line.
Are you saying you don't think professional athletes aren't overpaid? In this case, hockey players. Brain injuries don't come from one hockey play. They come from repeatedly putting yourself in that predicament and losing. If you are at a higher risk due to previous injuries, then its your own damn fault(Hi Pat LaFontaine). Greed keeps them going. Doubt any player in sports history has said, "Wow, my future health is permanently damaged from the first injury I got. And I wasn't even paid well to play!"

Players know the risks. They like the money more. So saying they can lose more than a guy who has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into a company doesn't really mesh. Players stop playing and lose... their job($3m avg?). Welcome to the real world. Owners stop the league and get shafted out of a truck load of money and tax breaks. I can't even guess as to how much they'd lose but its more than the avg player for sure.

Don't forget the other leagues in the world. Players don't have sign NHL contracts. Go play in Europe. What's the owner to do? Hire replacements and picket line crossers.

Put simply, if you're not willing to lose what you're fighting for, don't puff out your chest.
You have to have one to cross and a job to go to after you cross. You seem to be missing the fact that if there is no hockey come fall, it will be due to the league shutting down.

joshjull is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 11:29 AM
  #112
joshjull
Moderator
 
joshjull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hamburg,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 34,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Your subjectivity and biases pervade your entire post. Anyways, initial collective-bargaining proposals are almost always one-sided proposals representing everything the party proposing wants, and then some. There's also an element of strategy to it, as well. You create as many bargaining chips as possible, and you determine when you're going to use each chip. Also, it's a sad truth in America that this is how people bargain: they anchor themselves to extreme proposals and negotiate from there. Do I wish it wasn't like this? Of course. But that's just the way it is now, and I'm sure the players are going to ask for the same or a better deal than they have now.
Actually thats not the case at all. As someone who is in a union (as is my wife), I've been involved in many of these things. Rarely, if ever, do the employees come with a list of ridiculous or pie in the sky demands because they have zero leverage to get them. Management usually comes at this from two angles. In one they are looking for a quick resolution, so they offer good terms that may need just a bit of tweeking in negotiations for an agreement. Since things are going well and they see little reason for a protracted battle. In another approach they come hard at the union, because they want or in some cases need big concessions since things aren't going as well. Or they just want to weaken (or even crush) the union and the battle has little to do with the relative success or failure of the business.

Quote:
Oh, those poor players. They submitted to a CBA they hate so much that they extended it twice and would operate under it for time immemorial if they had their way. Let's all feel bad for those poor players who worked under obscene working conditions since 2005-06.
The option to extend it twice was part of the CBA and considering the union was still getting its house in order, it made a lot of sense.

Quote:
No, let's not, because player/management bargaining relationships in the professional sports context is not analogous to "typical" union/management relationships in the private sector. Professional athletes have leverage and bargaining power in a way that hotel employees and janitors can only dream of. Professional athletes cannot be adequately replaced. It's much easier to replace a grocery store cashier.

The players wield significant power this time around, and will not be steamrolled. This is not a situation analogous to "typical" bargaining relationships.
I agree to a some extent that the relationship is not analogous. But there are unions in various professions that can't be adequately replaced. At least in terms of being done quickly during a labor dispute. My job, for example, as a professional firefighter. The city couldn't go out and get 700+ professional FFs to replace us during a labor dispute.

Quote:
You're again operating from a premise that the most recent CBA was terrible for the players. Time has judged that agreement to be extremely beneficial for the players, as evidenced by the union's extension of the agreement on multiple occasions. And we all know the players would love to continue operating under the current agreement. As it turns out, it was a great deal for the players.
Its was a deal thats worked out great in the long run for both sides with record revenues coming in. But intially the players took a big hit and had to work their way back. I also don't think anyone is arguing the players are suffering. Most are saying its not unreasonable for the players to not want to give up much if anything after the last time around.

Quote:
But you want management to take the bargaining table a philosophy that since they were the perceived winners the last time at the bargaining table, they should be "nicer" with their proposals this time around. Come on.
Perceived winners? They were without question the winners of the last CBA negotiations. When the smoke cleared the NHLPA leadership was in disarray, the players took a 24% across the board pay cut and went from 75% to 55% share of league revenues.

Quote:
Who's insulted? You? Some other posters? Talking heads? Who's the arbiter or reasonableness? You?
I could certainly understand if the players were not happy with the initial proposal. It not only reduces their percentage of league wide revenue. Its also reduces what is considered as league wide revenue. Essentially a smaller cut of a smaller pie. Its also takes away the majority of the salary escalators players still have.

Quote:
You want this to be a simple issue, but it isn't. There's far too much strategy and cat-and-mouse to these negotiations. Of course they're not going to get concessions to this extent. Of course the union isn't going to get anything close to what their initial offer will be. But, this is the process, whether you like it or not.
His point is it doesn't have to be like this and he is right. If the owners came in with a less aggressive proposal then it would be a smaller gap to bridge. The players have little leverage to demand much beyond what they have.

Quote:
All the hand-wringing is the only thing that's "ridiculous" about the past three days
Its not ridiuclous that some posters are worried about losing some of the season. There is plenty of recent sports history to back that concern.




I was firmly in the owners corner last time around. They badly needed to change to the financial structure of the league. I felt it was worth losing a season if they got that. But the biggest issue now IMO is some franchises are struggling due to not having the revenue streams to support payroll. The owners want to fix that on the players backs by resetting salaries again. What needs working out is something among the owners, better revenue sharing. If they don't fix the revenue issues for those teams struggling to fund payroll. Then the problem isn't dealt with and will be back next round of negotiations.


Last edited by joshjull: 07-16-2012 at 11:47 AM.
joshjull is online now  
Old
07-16-2012, 11:59 AM
  #113
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,804
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Actually thats not the case at all. As someone who is in a union (as is my wife), I've been involved in many of these things. Rarely, if ever, do the employees come with a list of ridiculous or pie in the sky demands because they have zero leverage to get them. Management usually comes at this from two angles. In one they are looking for a quick resolution, so they offer good terms that may need just a bit of tweeking in negotiations for an agreement. Since things are going well and they see little reason for a protracted battle. In another approach they come hard at the union, because they want or in some cases need big concessions since things aren't going as well. Or they just want to weaken (or even crush) the union and the battle has little to do with the relative success or failure of the business.
A lot of times it is this way, whether you choose to admit it or not. My brother works for an employer-side labor law firm, and my uncle is a former Regional Director at the NLRB. It's not uncommon at all for employers to come to the table asking for a lot. This happens frequently. It's not "ridulous," nor is it unlawful.

Again, I hate the smaller-scale comparisons to billion-dollar enterprises. Every percentage point in your job is not worth tens of millions of dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
The option to extend it twice was part of the CBA and considering the union was still getting its house in order, it made a lot of sense.
I sure hope you're not deluding yourself into believing that the players extended the CBA on multiple occasions primarily because it would make them more money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I agree to a some extent that the relationship is not analogous. But there are unions in various professions that can't be adequately replaced. At least in terms of being done quickly during a labor dispute. My job, for example, as a professional firefighter. The city couldn't go out and get 700+ professional FFs to replace us during a labor dispute.
I recognize there are certainly some professions that cannot be adequately replaced. Firefighters are one of them, certainly. RP, though, seemed to be trying to paint with a broad brush when he made the analogy to which I was responding.

My point, as stated above, is that the bargaining relationship between pro leagues and pro athletes is very unique, and is not easily analogized to typical professions, though most try to make such comparisons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Its was a deal thats worked out great in the long run for both sides with record revenues coming in. But intially the players took a big hit and had to work their way back. I also don't think anyone is arguing the players are suffering. Most are saying its not unreasonable for the players to not want to give up much if anything after the last time around.
And I'm saying it's impossible to tell whether they're going to have to give up much based only on an initial proposal from one side. Is there going to be hand-wringing on this board if the players counter with a proposal that eliminates the salary cap, increases the definition of HRR, and calls for a similar or greater cut of the HRR? Nah, probably not--and people will say it's the rationale response to such an "unreasonable" offer by the league.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
Perceived winners? They were without question the winners of the last CBA negotiations. When the smoke cleared the NHLPA leadership was in disarray, the players took a 24% across the board pay cut and went from 75% to 55% share of league revenues.
Why does their have to be winners and losers in everything? As you allude to below, the league's financial model at the time was untenable. They got that right and moved on. Many seemingly want to take what happened last time and apply it to what should happen this time. Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
I could certainly understand if the players were not happy with the initial proposal. It not only reduces their percentage of league wide revenue. Its also reduces what is considered as league wide revenue. Essentially a smaller cut of a smaller pie. PLus it takes away the majority of salary escalators thus making it much ahrder than last time to get their salaries back up again.
It's an initial proposal, ffs. Can we wait to see what the players' counter will be, at least? So, management wants more money for itself, and employees want as much or more money for themselves. Gee, we just defined about 99% of all collective-bargaining negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshjull View Post
His point is it doesn't have to be like this and he is right. If the owners came in with a less aggressive proposal then it would be a smaller gap to bridge. The players have little leverage to demand much beyond what they have.
So what happens if the Employer came with a "less aggressive" proposal, and the Union responded by countering with an increase in HRR for itself, no salary cap, reduction in length of ELC's, etc. There'd still be a wide chasm.

Nobody is accounting for the fact that an initial offer is largely strategic, and is made in an effort to increase the amount of cards each party has in its hand. It sounds like people are also angry because the initial offer made by the league may cause the process to take longer. If they really want to, the parties will hammer this out in two weeks. Relax.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:18 PM
  #114
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,654
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresAreScaryGood View Post
Thats kind of what Im thinking. IMO this is a huge time for Pegula to step up and become a major factor in the NHL. I even heard him say he bought that sports agency to learn more about the business of sports. Maybe he was preparing himself.
The problem is that Pegula hasn't been around that long and guys like Jeremy Jacobs wield way more power and influence with Bettman and the other owners.

My guess is that there are more than a few owners with a stomach for another long battle.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 01:29 PM
  #115
rkorchinski
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bob View Post
The problem is that Pegula hasn't been around that long and guys like Jeremy Jacobs wield way more power and influence with Bettman and the other owners.

My guess is that there are more than a few owners with a stomach for another long battle.
Just read that the owner of the Penguins is getting into the agent business as well. Maybe Pegula and Burkle may be onto something...

rkorchinski is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:46 PM
  #116
SabresFanInLA
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
What happens to contracts if there's a lockout?

IF this ********* doesn't get settled between the NHL and the PA and an entire season is lost, what happens to the players' contracts? Does someone hit the pause button, and they pick up where they left off for 2013-2014? Or would we come back to find that guys like Regehr and Leopold are no longer on our team? What happens with unsigned UFAs like Ennis and Kaleta?

SabresFanInLA is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 06:58 PM
  #117
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SabresFanInLA View Post
IF this ********* doesn't get settled between the NHL and the PA and an entire season is lost, what happens to the players' contracts? Does someone hit the pause button, and they pick up where they left off for 2013-2014? Or would we come back to find that guys like Regehr and Leopold are no longer on our team? What happens with unsigned UFAs like Ennis and Kaleta?
Likely Ennis and Kaleta will be signed before any lockout.

The new CBA would likely address that matter if a whole season is lost--both parties would have to agree on how existing contracts are used.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 09:00 PM
  #118
Woodhouse
Registered User
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 50
NHL, players set to resume labour talks on Wednesday. This will be their first meeting since the players received the league's proposal.

Woodhouse is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:25 AM
  #119
CrankyJay
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 4,913
vCash: 500
Goodness, can't they just settle on a 50/50 split of of the revenues and come to some sort of compromise on these ridiculous contracts?

CrankyJay is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:40 AM
  #120
jamers
McTankel Mechanic
 
jamers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyJay View Post
Goodness, can't they just settle on a 50/50 split of of the revenues and come to some sort of compromise on these ridiculous contracts?
A season must be sacrificed to the hockey gods before such a compromise can be struck.


jamers is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:54 AM
  #121
CrankyJay
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 4,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamers View Post
A season must be sacrificed to the hockey gods before such a compromise can be struck.

Haha, I'd hate to see another lockout. I'm really excited for the Sabres this year.

CrankyJay is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 12:37 PM
  #122
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,654
vCash: 500
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...en-owners.html

An interesting piece on the big money owners vs smaller money owners.

Quote:
One of the tenets raised in the NHL's first offer was the clawing back of hockey-related revenues that players receive from 57 percent, where it currently stands, to 46. That will most likely get negotiated down, but for the ex-exec, the question of revenue sharing rears up here.

“Say it's 50 percent,” he said. “Where does that other seven percent go? Is it divided between every team, or just the bottom 10?”

To be sure, there are franchises losing money. For me, I've never denied that – I just don't really care. My philosophy has always been that people buy hockey teams for reasons other than profit. These are largely multi-millionaires and billionaires who were really good at something else – oil and gas, big pharma, media – and used their corporate genius to buy a fun toy. But obviously they don't see it that way.

“At some point you have that moment in the shower where you say, ‘why am I spending (i.e. losing) $25 million to be a hockey fan?’” the ex-exec said. “Plus, you're competitive. This is a group of people who aren't used to defeat.”

The former exec's two cents involve the cap floor, which right now is tied to the ceiling by about $16 million. For the have-not teams, the increasing “ante” to be in the league is what's straining their finely tuned financial spidey senses. For example, the floor during the first capped season in 2005-06 was just $23 million – that’s $31 million less than what it will be for 2012-13.

“If the floor was lower, you wouldn't have so many problems,” he said. “There's not enough players to get teams up to the floor right now.”

Unless Shane Doan gets Alex Ovechkin money, I suppose.

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
07-18-2012, 10:37 PM
  #123
Woodhouse
Registered User
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 50
The NHL and NHLPA plan to talk again Thursday and Friday, as today's meeting was spent reviewing the league's proposal. NHLPA‬ head Don Fehr said players may use the league's proposal to counter, or may submit one of their own, independent of the league's offer.

Woodhouse is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 03:52 PM
  #124
WhoIsJimBob
Circle the Bandwagon
 
WhoIsJimBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,654
vCash: 500
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...L-markets.html

I wonder if the Weber OS from the Flyers will make the big money owners vs smaller money owners split even worse?

WhoIsJimBob is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 07:05 AM
  #125
heartsabres*
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Budapest
Country: Hungary
Posts: 1,790
vCash: 500
Anyone else think the new CBA will shut the door on the sabres winning the cup?
I Do and here is why...

If the new CBA gets rid of signing bonuses and cap contracts to 5 years then what does Pegula bucks do for the sabres? Nothing

Why would superstars come here? They wouldn't

The new CBA will give teams like Philly, NYR, Pitt and Detroit all the ammunition they need to lock up all the best players.

The only advantage the sabres have is the ability to throw millions at players, without this I think the sabres are in big trouble.

heartsabres* 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 04:17 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.