HFBoards

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

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 02:28 PM
  #151
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Proposal theme is to partner with the stronger teams in league to help smaller market/struggling teams. In past as revenues go up, cap goes up. Now players share will grow at an artificially slower rate.If revenue grows at least by 7%, owners would keep $465 million. Rev grew at 9% this year and at 10.2% year before which means teams could stand to make double. In essence players are saying, go for it, make money and grow the game and keep what's leftover and in the 4th year the Players have the option to revert back to present system at 57%. Parameters in proposal as to how that money is used to help teams 'in need'.
From Ward's Tweet, looks like the players are offering the flat cap, so that the owners can pocket the increased revenue in coming years. Nothing about a luxury tax that I can see.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:33 PM
  #152
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,460
vCash: 500
Bottom line:

The Players AND the owners are greedy. Neither cares about the fans who pay their salaries, and if the NYR weren't so good right now, I'd have no problem walking away after a lockout and not speding one damn dime on them.

Unfortunately, because I love hockey and I love the NYR I'll be back. Sucks.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:38 PM
  #153
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Bottom line:

The Players AND the owners are greedy. Neither cares about the fans who pay their salaries, and if the NYR weren't so good right now, I'd have no problem walking away after a lockout and not speding one damn dime on them.

Unfortunately, because I love hockey and I love the NYR I'll be back. Sucks.
Well from the looks of it today. There may not be a lockout at all. Players seem to be sacrificing potential growth in salary so that the owners can pocket more profits. Players are willingly giving up money it seems.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:40 PM
  #154
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
nutshell #CBA: players get $1.89B for 3 yrs; owners keep bulk of rev growth from that period. Revenue sharing up; hard cap stays
https://twitter.com/michaelgrange/st...57212737286144

The NHL was a $3.3B business in 11-12. It increases to $4B,the players share remains $1.89B. Flat cap.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:50 PM
  #155
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
So could it be that you have that flat cap, and then a luxury tax for those who go over due to inflation?
Fehr wants to loosen up the cap. Its a hard cap. A team can go over but they pay a tax. It could be a steep tax like the NBA. Or if a team goes over the cap using the bonus cushion,they don't take a cap hit the following season. They pay a luxury tax on that overage. Teams can exceed the cap by 7.5% in performance bonuses and carry those bonuses towards next season's cap in the current CBA.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:55 PM
  #156
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Fehr wants to loosen up the cap. Its a hard cap. A team can go over but they pay a tax. It could be a steep tax like the NBA. Or if a team goes over the cap using the bonus cushion,they don't take a cap hit the following season. They pay a luxury tax on that overage. Teams can exceed the cap by 7.5% in performance bonuses and carry those bonuses towards next season's cap in the current CBA.
So what we will probably see is an increased in incentive based contracts in big market clubs? Since you can only go over the hard cap on your incentives, not your set wage?

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 02:58 PM
  #157
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Its actually a good proposal. Its better than the garbage put out by Bettman. Cuts everywhere when the league is recording record revenue every year. The contract lengths is an issue. Those long term contracts are ridiculous. The players should keep free agency at 7 or 27 and keep arbitration. The players are guaranteed a fixed amount every year. The owners grow the business. They keep the extra revenue but they have to share more of their revenue which shouldn't be an issue with the players getting a fixed amount.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:31 PM
  #158
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
57% of $3.3B is $1.89B. Revenue increases to $4B. The players continue to receive $1.89B. That's 47% of $4B. That's a bad deal for the NHL?

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:32 PM
  #159
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
This proposal just put a new perspective on things. Like one person said above, it seems the players are willing to allow the owners to pocket more revenue as long as their revenue from the previous season is the same.

3.3B and they got 1.89B. If it goes up to 4B, they only want 1.89B. As long as their revenue doesn't decrease, it seems the players are OK with that. This proposal is instilling some confidence in me that a deal will get done.

EDIT: Exactly what RB just posted above me. The players are willing to let the NHL pocket the majority of money if it means playing hockey.

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:33 PM
  #160
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,591
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
57% of $3.3B is $1.89B. Revenue increases to $4B. The players continue to receive $1.89B. That's 47% of $4B. That's a bad deal for the NHL?
Aren't the players cheating themselves by doing that?

Jabroni is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:34 PM
  #161
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
Aren't the players cheating themselves by doing that?
They want to play hockey, it seems.

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:41 PM
  #162
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
The interesting part is that it's putting the onus on the owners and the NHL to generate as much money as they can, since they more they can make the more they can keep, and (if the luxury tax part is true) forcing the owners to make the decision themselves whether they want to give the players more than that hard cap number, while paying a tax to do so (which then goes back into revenue sharing)

The players aren't completely screwing themselves in this deal, since they're proposing it for only 3 years with the option to revert back to the current deal (which the NHL will never go for IMO)

The other side to this IMO is that it encourages teams to gouge the fans for as much money as they possibly can (though I assume they do that already)

Levitate is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:42 PM
  #163
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Is there anything in the NHLPA's proposal about contract structure? I feel as if that is a major talking point for the owners and something they want changed, even if they did make their own bed in that sense with the terrible deals and money the GMs and owners were throwing around.

It's a good offer from the NHLPA, one that's going to give them good PR because it shows that they are ready to make a fair deal and they want to play. It was a good idea of them to not counter the NHL's ludicrous offer with a ludicrous offer of their own and throw the season away. The NHLPA knows that they're going to have to meet somewhere in the middle, and this is a good start at getting there.

I think revenue sharing is going to be a HUGE factor though for some of these owners, one that may even delay the negotiations process since the NHL now has to negotiate within itself.

I just want ****ing hockey in October. I hope the NHL has their counter-offer in no more than two weeks TOPS.

silverfish is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:43 PM
  #164
IBleedNYRBlue
Registered User
 
IBleedNYRBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,780
vCash: 500
What are the chance the NHL accepts this offer from the NHLPA?

1%?

IBleedNYRBlue is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:45 PM
  #165
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,528
vCash: 500
No chance they accept it as is but it could be a good start in negotiating some things and working out a plan.

As for contract structure, I think it was reported the players said they didn't want any changes to the current contract restrictions, but I imagine that can be a point to be negotiated as well

Levitate is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:45 PM
  #166
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL605 View Post
What are the chance the NHL accepts this offer from the NHLPA?

1%?
It's closer to 1 in a 1,000,000


silverfish is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 03:46 PM
  #167
Clowes Line
Cally's Chicken Parm
 
Clowes Line's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Yawk
Country: United States
Posts: 12,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RL605 View Post
What are the chance the NHL accepts this offer from the NHLPA?

1%?
They won't accept it as is. But there is no reason why the owners should turn down the economic part, which is the players accepting 1.89 Billion no matter how much revenue there is.

It's a great building block. If they work off of this, a deal will get done.

Clowes Line is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 04:52 PM
  #168
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreiders Underwear View Post
They won't accept it as is. But there is no reason why the owners should turn down the economic part, which is the players accepting 1.89 Billion no matter how much revenue there is.

It's a great building block. If they work off of this, a deal will get done.
Yeah, it's a clear negotiation offer. Fehrs offer just don't make any sense as a whole. Why only sign a 3y offer now? The 4th option year is bogus. Why would the owners jump back to 57% after probably being below 50% of HRR in 3 years (with 5% growth, could be alot more)?

What makes sense is to set a number of HRR. Say 52%. Freeze the players' share until it is lower than 52%. Have a longer CBA. Ten years.

Not enough for Bettman? Artificially pocket the money the players make over 52% right now, and deduct it from future increases in the players share until it evens out.

Ola is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:01 PM
  #169
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,680
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
1,89 B to players
30 teams
63 M midpoint in salaries

10% overage/underage
69,3 M in cap ceiling
56,7 in cap minimum
Luxury tax? for breaking cap by an additional 3%
No cap increase the next 3 years - all the revenue growth incl HRR to the owners
Increased revenue sharing amongst owners
Bonus system with deferrable bonuses put back in place

No rollbacks
7 years max - 27 years until FA
New system for arbitration
New system for player discipline
Raise minimum pay considerably on two way deals
No new burying of contracted players in AHL
One contract per year can be sold to another team not affecting cap hit (form of luxury tax)
One time limited contract buyout is allowed (with leniant terms) when the new CBA is signed

Sounds fair to me!
Sign it and drop the MFing puck!

BBKers is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:14 PM
  #170
freewheeler
Registered User
 
freewheeler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 210
vCash: 500
Traverse City May Happen

May have been reported here, but I didn't see it. Traverse City may still happen...

freewheeler is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:22 PM
  #171
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Need to clarify: Misunderstood what I was told. PA proposal includes "small exceptions" to hard cap, but not in the form of luxury tax.
https://twitter.com/reporterchris/st...93318174310401

So no luxury tax.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:22 PM
  #172
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Is there anything in the NHLPA's proposal about contract structure? I feel as if that is a major talking point for the owners and something they want changed, even if they did make their own bed in that sense with the terrible deals and money the GMs and owners were throwing around.

It's a good offer from the NHLPA, one that's going to give them good PR because it shows that they are ready to make a fair deal and they want to play. It was a good idea of them to not counter the NHL's ludicrous offer with a ludicrous offer of their own and throw the season away. The NHLPA knows that they're going to have to meet somewhere in the middle, and this is a good start at getting there.

I think revenue sharing is going to be a HUGE factor though for some of these owners, one that may even delay the negotiations process since the NHL now has to negotiate within itself.

I just want ****ing hockey in October. I hope the NHL has their counter-offer in no more than two weeks TOPS.
The players didn't offer any changes on contract structure.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:26 PM
  #173
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabroni1994 View Post
Aren't the players cheating themselves by doing that?
The players have offered a 3 year CBA under those terms. They offered to hold an option for a 4th year at 57%.

The players keep their current salaries. No rollbacks.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:30 PM
  #174
Esa 10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 567
vCash: 500
Any ideas on whether the players' proposed share of HRR would freeze the cap ceiling at $64.2 or $70.2 million for the next 3 years?

Esa 10 is offline  
Old
08-14-2012, 05:30 PM
  #175
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,851
vCash: 500
The NBA CBA has an opt out for both sides after 6 years

Quote:
Length of the agreement

2005 CBA: Seven years, with a league opt-out in 2011 (which the league invoked).

2011 CBA: Ten years, with a mutual opt-out (either side can opt out) in 2017.

Who benefits? While it is encouraging to think that we won't have to witness another lockout until 2022, in all likelihood one side will invoke its option in 2017 to reopen labor negotiations. Since right now this deal appears to greatly favor the owners, it is reasonable to think the players will opt out -- especially since the national TV contracts are up for renewal in 2016, and the league expects an injection of new revenue. But this may not turn out to be the case -- the 2005 CBA was thought to favor the league, as well.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...pares-last-one

RangerBoy 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 08:50 AM.

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.