Although, hopefully there is a change of policy coming from TNSE and they refund money during the lockout period. Would take a while to make all the calculations and issue the refunds, hence probably why they prefer an account-credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzappa
Read the TNSE TPA - they keep all the money and its credited to your account for next year, or whenever hockey starts again.
#CBA WPG's Ron Hainsey just spoke on behalf of NHLPA, said he "absolutely" thinks a new deal can be done by September 15.
Retweeted by Leah Hextall
So.... Lynky... is Ron being real or just blowing smoke up our butts?
TBH I think it's all a bunch of bs and am fully expecting a shortened season if anything this year. I "absolutely" think it's something player reps have to say.
Just my opinion, but who knows maybe Ron will be right.
Is anyone else worried that apparently the NHLPA is not giving a counter-offer tomorrow but instead "a different view of things"? I smell a luxury tax proposal which would put us back at square one and essentially kiss at least half of the season goodbye.
Someone please force these entitled millionaires to sit in a room together 8 hours a day, 5 days a week until its sorted out.
Is anyone else worried that apparently the NHLPA is not giving a counter-offer tomorrow but instead "a different view of things"? I smell a luxury tax proposal which would put us back at square one and essentially kiss at least half of the season goodbye.
Someone please force these entitled millionaires to sit in a room together 8 hours a day, 5 days a week until its sorted out.
At this rate, i don't think its going to get settled quickly at all.
If the NHLPA is looking to scrap a cap system for MLB luxury tax system, no chance this deal is done in the next 3 or 4 months.
MLB's system is absolutely horrendous for small market teams.
The MLB system provides significant revenue sharing for small market teams. The problem is that they have no minimum salaries. So in some cities the owners simply pocketed the money, or in the case of Miami used it for stadium financing. Fans in places like Pittsburgh were angry at their ownership because they weren't spending their money on players.
I also agree that it is a great time to check out other leagues. In the last lockout I started watching the Manitoba Bisons. [THREAD] I have never stopped.
One note: In the last lockout there was a lawsuit over the Stanley Cup. If the NHL does not compete for it then the trustees of the cup are obliged to hold an alternate competition for it. So we could have an interesting wait for a decision on that.
It will be interesting to see just what the NHL owners do. They cannot be on the same page. They could have extended the current arrangement which is fine for most teams. Just a few stupid owners giving long-term deals which make no sense mess thing up. But their teams will pay in the end with reduced cap space.
There are a few teams who cannot meet the salary floor. Since the salary floor was fine for them after the lockout it is evident the problem is that increasing revenues have not accrued evenly throughout the league. In other words, the rich have gotten richer. The teams that came out of the lockout profitable even when operating at the upper limit of the salary cap are therefore even more profitable now.
What impact does this have? The league's wealthier teams are able to do more revenue sharing than they were in 2005. Expect the NHLPA to demonstrate this in their counter-proposal.
It will be interesting to see just what the NHL owners do. They cannot be on the same page. They could have extended the current arrangement which is fine for most teams. Just a few stupid owners giving long-term deals which make no sense mess thing up. But their teams will pay in the end with reduced cap space.
There are a few teams who cannot meet the salary floor. Since the salary floor was fine for them after the lockout it is evident the problem is that increasing revenues have not accrued evenly throughout the league. In other words, the rich have gotten richer. The teams that came out of the lockout profitable even when operating at the upper limit of the salary cap are therefore even more profitable now.
What impact does this have? The league's wealthier teams are able to do more revenue sharing than they were in 2005. Expect the NHLPA to demonstrate this in their counter-proposal.
You make some good points, in line with my own views. Parity is good for ML sports overall, though it penalizes the very wealthy. Bettman knows this and will get a deal with increased revenue sharing, some of which will come from the rich teams, but most of which will come from the PA. I have no problem with this, as the PAs % of revenues can drop to the low 50s and still keep them in line with other pro sports. The rich owners can trumpet the fact that they've thrown in their 2 cents (which is what it'll feel like to them) and still walk away with big profits. Good for them, they take the big risks.
In the end, this will be good for the Jets, as they are in the middle of the pack. It'll give them down-side protection and, by narrowing the range, make it easier to reach the top. I am being patient and optimistic, even if we miss part of the season. This is where TNSE's behind-the-scenes business acumen and team building talent can really help the league overall and the Jets in particular.
All IMHO.
TNSE will not refund money
Guaranteed
It will just get credited for next year
My question is, would a whole season lost take one full year off your 3,4, or 5 year contract?
If you still trying to get out of your P2 ticket group, let me know. I think that I'd be good for 10 games, and there are probably 3 others on this forum who would each take 10.
TORONTO - The National Hockey League Players' Association has tabled its first offer in the latest round of collective bargaining talks with the NHL.
The union says its proposal to the league includes a smaller percentage of revenues for players and an expanded revenue sharing program to help struggling teams.
Seems to be a weak counter offer by the players. They really have just made concessions, usually for a counter-offer they should have tried to take some things (ie shorter RFA time, no arbitration, etc), rather than automatically surrendering. Interesting.
The key to this CBA really is revenue sharing though. The only way ANY CBA will work with the NHL, with it's MASSIVE disparity in revenues among it's members is revenue sharing. That means taking money right out of the hands of Toronto, New York, Montreal, etc and simply handing it over to Phoenix, Columbus, Anaheim, etc. The PA will not let that go, as they shouldn't, Bettman will have to get the big boys on board with it, whether they like it or not.
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Seems to be a weak counter offer by the players. They really have just made concessions, usually for a counter-offer they should have tried to take some things (ie shorter RFA time, no arbitration, etc), rather than automatically surrendering. Interesting.
The key to this CBA really is revenue sharing though. The only way ANY CBA will work with the NHL, with it's MASSIVE disparity in revenues among it's members is revenue sharing. That means taking money right out of the hands of Toronto, New York, Montreal, etc and simply handing it over to Phoenix, Columbus, Anaheim, etc. The PA will not let that go, as they shouldn't, Bettman will have to get the big boys on board with it, whether they like it or not.
I was quite surprised with that response, absolutely shocked that the players agreed to a reduced portion of revenue off the bat. It looks like they want to keep the long term deals. You are correct that one of the major things that needs to happen in this CBA is revenue sharing and this proposal seems to address that. I'm very interested in seeing how the owners respond to this. I have a feeling that they may agree to the PA's salary proportions and if there is enough noise from the smaller market teams the revenue sharing plan. But I have to think that those long term deals are still a major issue for a number of teams. The PA may have to accept some cap on length or an entirely new formula for calculating the cap hits.
Lets see what the details are and the complete proposal from the NHLPA before deciding what consessions the players are suggesting.
For now, the players have put a pretty nice spin on their response, as each side tries to win the PR battle. But buried in that 'alternate view' may be some things that they know the owners won't go for. You have to believe that they do not want salaries to be hindered or impeded on a go forward basis.
Revenue sharing will be key, no doubt. But that's a difficult thing to determine as the NHL is still a gate driven league, to a large degree, in many centers as they do not have significant national broadcast revenue close to the level of other major leagues. The bigger markets have local broadcast deals that smaller markets can't come close to.
The problem i see with a luxury tax is free spending teams continue to drive salaries up, as it only takes a few to spend (as we have seen this summer) to create an elevated market. If they overspend, their taxed. Well, if i can afford it, i'll continue to spend. My fan base, ownership and shareholders expect our team to win and the revenues that come from long playoff runs each year.
Fehr is sharp. He crafted an offer which addresses every stated concern the owners have. He then pays for it with a restriction on raises, assuming NHL revenues go up by over 2% per year. And then he tops it off by forcing the owners to do what they should have done last summer: Get some revenue sharing happening.
There may be a "devil in the details", but the overall plan seems like a good blueprint for the future.
IMO the debate will be amongst the owners. I am guessing that half the teams (at least) could easily live with the NHLPA offer.
From what we know so far the NHLPA made a pretty reasonable counter offer. Certainly looks like they will do what they can to get a deal.
Seems like a clever strategy to be willing to make some concessions and throwing revenue sharing back at the owners. Lets hope the owners have the best interest of the league at heart and start bridging the gap with their next response.
Overall I remain hopeful. Not enough to have our STH group's ticket draft yet, but I certainly won't be making any aternative plans for Oct 13th.
From what we know so far the NHLPA made a pretty reasonable counter offer. Certainly looks like they will do what they can to get a deal.
Seems like a clever strategy to be willing to make some concessions and throwing revenue sharing back at the owners. Lets hope the owners have the best interest of the league at heart and start bridging the gap with their next response.
Overall I remain hopeful. Not enough to have our STH group's ticket draft yet, but I certainly won't be making any aternative plans for Oct 13th.
They are certainly making concessions early-on, but will that be seen as weakness by the owners? A lowered % of revenues for the players was always a given. Fehr knew that, so instead of having it wrested from his hands, he gave it away and got PR points for the PA. The question remains, what is the number? Also, I can't see the owners reversing their take in year 4. Likewise, increased owner contribution to revenue sharing is a given, but how much can the 'poor' guys (eg, Chipman, for the sake of this discussion) pry out of the hands of the rich guys?
My view on long-term contracts has changed. I first thought they were crazy and wanted them gone. I now think they're mostly crazy (eg Crosby), but, if we keep them and more strictly enforce their impact on the cap, they could end up hamstringing the rich, free-spending teams and helping the fiscally responsible teams. So, maybe both sides will find a way to keep them.
As perhaps suspected, there is less to the NHLPA offer than meets the eye.
The PA isn't offering to reduce wages one bit. Instead they are saying they will take an increase in the cap of "only" 2% in year one, 4% in year two, and 6% in year three. The enter "players are giving up between $400 and $800 mil" is that if you take the average increase in league revenues from the last few years and project it out over the next three.
It disappoints me all of this has been done in the public. If the parties were serious about negotiating things would be done behind closed doors.
As perhaps suspected, there is less to the NHLPA offer than meets the eye.
The PA isn't offering to reduce wages one bit. Instead they are saying they will take an increase in the cap of "only" 2% in year one, 4% in year two, and 6% in year three. The enter "players are giving up between $400 and $800 mil" is that if you take the average increase in league revenues from the last few years and project it out over the next three.
It disappoints me all of this has been done in the public. If the parties were serious about negotiating things would be done behind closed doors.
Yeah it's a BS offer and I doubt we have NHL hockey any time soon this year.
As perhaps suspected, there is less to the NHLPA offer than meets the eye.
The PA isn't offering to reduce wages one bit. Instead they are saying they will take an increase in the cap of "only" 2% in year one, 4% in year two, and 6% in year three. The enter "players are giving up between $400 and $800 mil" is that if you take the average increase in league revenues from the last few years and project it out over the next three.
It disappoints me all of this has been done in the public. If the parties were serious about negotiating things would be done behind closed doors.
Yes, it's widely painted as a reasonable offer by the clueless sports media (hint: they didn't go into sports journalism because of their 1337 math skillz), but basically in response to the owners' offer of a 27% salary cut, they've countered with raises of 2%, 4%, 6% and an option to take the better of another 6% raise or 57% of HRR (whichever is higher). This money they're donating to revenue sharing doesn't exist yet - and may never exist if the the US goes back into recession, or Canada's real estate bubble pops. It comes out of their pockets only if league growth exceeds 2%, 4% and 6% over the next 3 years. And then in year 4, they see it all back.
It isn't a bad starting point though. I could see them working it out to an ongoing 52-48 split (players-owners). The 5% the players give up (compared to this CBA) being matched (maybe not dollar for dollar - say $0.50 for every "NHLPA dollar" since the owners are already sharing a some revenues - TV, merchandise, etc.) and pooled for revenue sharing for the league's lower revenue teams.
So current league revenues are $3.3 billion.
57% = $1.881 billion
52% = $1.716 billion
Difference = $165 million to NHLPA revenue sharing
Owners' contribution of $82.5 million (half of NHLPA - raised through a 5.2% revenue tax on every team's HRR)
Total revenue pool: $247.5 million
Distributed via some formula to the bottom, say, 15 teams = $16.5 million each - Hey, that's 61% of what Shae Weber will make over the next year!
) pry out of the hands of the rich guys?
