HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-15-2012, 09:25 AM
  #201
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,333
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Realize View Post
I really hate that I don't understand why a lockout could happen ...
I'm watching the NHL again since 10-11 season right now and do really not get why this could happen.

The only think is that I know there needs to be an agreement between players and .. what..? League?!
It's the players and the owners. In simplest terms, it has to do with how the total revenue from the NHL gets split between them.

__________________
"Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:12 AM
  #202
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
What is that non-player spending thing?
that part makes little sense to me...the logic from the player standpoint is likely that the owners want to spend 46% on player salaries and have 54% for all the other stuff. so if you reduce how much they spend on the 'other' stuff that leaves more of the pie for the players...

but in reality the owners would just use that to put more $$ into their own products...and frankly as long as the players get their share of the pie, its none of their business what the team spends the rest of their $$ on. if jim dolan wants to blow his profits on hookers and drugs, how is that a concern of rick nash as long as rick nash gets paid his $$.

CM PUNK is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:28 AM
  #203
tailgunner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 215
vCash: 500
if jim dolan wants to blow his profits on hookers and drugs, how is that a concern of rick nash as long as rick nash gets paid his $$.[/QUOTE]

priceless and true

tailgunner is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:47 AM
  #204
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
This proposal should put some pressure on the owners to get it done. The court of public opinion is now on the players side, it would seem.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:48 AM
  #205
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Extra picks for teams in financial trouble? Super...

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 10:50 AM
  #206
MacTruck
In Gordie We Trust
 
MacTruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,924
vCash: 500
The NHLPA proposal wasn't as bad as most make it seem. Sure, the salary cap numbers are a little high but it was the first proposal. Hopefully its a wake up call to the NHL and the owners that their proposal needs work. I have faith, albeit not much. Praying that they can meet in the middle here. Anything more than a 2 month lockout would be a detrimental loss to the progress which the league had previously made.

MacTruck is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 11:23 AM
  #207
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
What is that non-player spending thing?
Arena lease and/or maintenance
Coaches and trainers
Support staff
Scouts
Equipment
Travel and lodging for players, coaches, trainers, scouts, etc.
Medical expenses for players
Marketing

They can't put a limit on that stuff. The western teams would be even more screwed because of their travel requirements.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 11:51 AM
  #208
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
 
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,351
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTruck View Post
The NHLPA proposal wasn't as bad as most make it seem. Sure, the salary cap numbers are a little high but it was the first proposal. Hopefully its a wake up call to the NHL and the owners that their proposal needs work. I have faith, albeit not much. Praying that they can meet in the middle here. Anything more than a 2 month lockout would be a detrimental loss to the progress which the league had previously made.
I think they have an agreement by Sept. 15.

Rust Heisenberg is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 11:58 AM
  #209
PassShootScore
208 Row 18
 
PassShootScore's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 634
vCash: 1150
what scares me about all of this is the NHLPA took a month to review the owners side and make their own proposal and now they only have 30 days left

PassShootScore is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:08 PM
  #210
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Extra picks for teams in financial trouble? Super...
Well, I guess they figure throwing money at stupid ownership doesnt work too well. Might as well try this.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:11 PM
  #211
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
I think they have an agreement by Sept. 15.
Too early to say right now. Im encouraged by the NHLPA's attempt at some serious discourse with their proposal.

We'll see what happens with the league - hopefully they're willing to move off of their (incredibly) zany demands and hammer this thing out.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:15 PM
  #212
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,440
vCash: 500
Posted on the business board today:


Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
The NHLPA is a wonderfully crafted piece meant to garner media and fan support while not really offering any real concessions to what the owners want aside from potential short-term HRR share reductions that were pretty much an inevitability for them unless they wanted to ride out another lockout.

Let's compare some of the key points from the owners vs. players proposals:

1. HRR and Player's Share
  • Owners proposed an 11% reduction and a redefining of what constitutes HRR to lower it.
  • Players proposed no reduction but modest raises for 3 years with a NHLPA option to jump back to the current 57% in a fourth year. Also rumored to want to redefine HRR to increase it.
Result: In truth the sides are not really close together. The owners want player shares to be significantly reduced, the players offer no reduction at all but on a short-term band-aid before going back to the current system which owners clearly do not want. Also the HRR issue, while not widely reported, will be a major point of negotiation between the sides as adding/removing revenue sources to what is considered HRR can cause huge shifts in the number.

2. Salary Reduction/Rollbacks
  • Owners propose 24% rollback of current contracts
  • Players says they will not accept salary reductions but only a 3-year artificial cap on growth of salaries.
Result: The players refuse to give up any of their current money or share, essentially offering a 3-year window for the NHL to somehow turn everything around before going back to the 57% HRR system the league has deemed unacceptable. Short of mass contraction or large-scale relocation of up to 20-25% of the current teams it's likely impossible that the revenue mess many teams currently have could be reversed in 3 years.

3. Contract limits, Free Agency, and ELCs
  • Owners want limits on the length of contracts, and increase of the age for the start of free agency, and longer ELC lengths.
  • Players have stated they do not want changes to any of these and didn't include any proposals on them in their CBA offer as starting points for negotation.
Result: One of the major issues owners put on the table to negotiate has been flatly refused by the players, leaving the sides absolutely no starting point for discussions on these issues at this point.

4. Arbitration System
  • Owners want it gone.
  • Players not only want to keep it, but expand it to make all arbitration cases binding by eliminating a teams "walk away" rights.
Result: Probably not a major issue for either side, but clearly a message sent by the NHLPA that they do not intend to budge at all from the current arbitration system.

5. Revenue Sharing
  • Owners proposal included no change to the revenue sharing system.
  • Players want a massive overhaul of the system whereby the top teams will be asked to pay a very significant amount more into the system, reportedly as much as $25M+ in the first year alone.
  • The incentive/restrictions in the current CBA on revenue sharing would be removed such as:
    • Elimination of market size restrictions so teams in large markets can get revenue sharing (NYI, ANA, FLA for example).
    • Elimination of revenue growth restrictions so that teams who cannot grow their revenues by the same percentage as the league average will still get full revenue sharing (CLB, NSH for example).
Result: The large-revenue teams will now be expected to shoulder the load for the rest of the league until those small markets become viable. However, there will be no restrictions on the the teams who get the money now. In fact, by eliminating the market size and revenue growth caveats to the current revenue sharing system more teams who were not eligible before will be now, partially/fully offsetting the increased revenue sharing dollars the top teams put in so it's possible the per-team revenue gain from revenue sharing will not change significantly.
Note: For all you Jets fans, it's very likely that had those revenue sharing restrictions not existed in the last CBA that the Thrashers would still be in Atlanta since their market size prevented them from being eligible for revenue-sharing dollars. This is also probably a setback to any Quebec fans hoping for a team to relocate there.

6. Salary Cap
  • Owners propose no change to the current hard-cap system.
  • Players propose a hard-cap but with exceptions that will allow teams to go +/- 4M over/under the max/min cap. Cap space could be traded or (maybe even) sold to other teams.
Result: Seems like a minor issue, although it seems like it's geared towards allowing "sellers" or low-payroll teams to simply generate more revenue by creating a new "asset" to sell. This would seem to favor the large-market teams who can afford to essentially "buy" an extra 4M in cap space every year.

7. Competitive Balance
  • Owners proposed no changes to the system
  • Players propose extra "sellable" draft picks for teams in financial trouble.
Result: Reportedly this is like the MLB model, which in it's first season is already being exposed as flawed. The Detroit Tigers, for instance, have the 5th highest payroll in MLB this season yet were given a free "competitive balance" draft pick. This is a very dangerous system to adopt, especially in a sport where you don't have the massive player pool to draw from like MLB and where later-round picks do not have the same type of success rate as in baseball. The MLB draft is far more of a crapshoot than the NHL draft is. More importantly, if these extra picks are solely tied to revenues then it becomes extremely important to see how revenues/losses are calculated. For example, despite being a big-spending team the Tigers were able to qualify because of their stadium debt. Similarly the Yankees were able to reduce revenue sharing payments by massive amounts (iirc over 20M) because of "stadium debt". The Red Wings could build a new arena and suddenly qualify for extra draft picks. So could the Rangers. Or Leafs. You get the picture. Giving away "free" picks just because a teams business model is failing/not profitable seems unwise. Not to mention a team could spend spend spend to the cap and just incur losses to qualify for this, just like the Tigers in MLB.

8. Non-player Spending Limit
  • Owners proposed none, simply letting teams spend whatever they want on non-player expenses.
  • Players can to cap non-player spending.
Result: Pretty audacious demand from the NHLPA, trying to tell owners how much they are allowed to spend. This would obviously impact things like scouting, travel costs, team management and employee payroll, advertising budgets, etc. Considering the inequity in travel expenses is already a sore topic to several teams (Winnipeg, Detroit, Minnesota, Dallas, Vancouver) telling them they not only have to spend MORE than almost every other team in travel while having the same limit to non-player spending would be problematic. If anything, this would force a de facto cap on coach/GM/Scout salaries. It may also lead teams to cancelling events like prospect camps, the Traverse City tournament, etc. as those added costs would eat into the available funds for more important things like scouting for example. I just don't see why the NHLPA would even attempt to do this.

Alot of this seems to be tied into the MLB model. However, that model is very flawed still with tons of loopholes that teams are abusing. I don't think the MLB revenue sharing model or "competitive balance" system is really the best way for the future of the NHL. The sides really are nowhere close at this point on any of the key issues. All the NHLPA has done is propose a system where low-budget/revenue teams will be given "free" assets in the form of picks/cap space to "sell" to the big-revenue teams, while at the same time telling those big-revenue teams to pay a huge chunk more into revenue-sharing. No offers to lower the cap floor as apparently several teams have trouble maintaining a payroll that high. No salary concessions. No reductions of player share from the current level. Guaranteed annual raises with the option for a massive 4th year boost. It's just a big, long-worded document that says to the owners "Let the big-revenue boys maximize the amount of money they give to the little sisters of the poor. That's now he will fix the system. Oh, and we aren't giving you **** in terms of payroll concessions or a reduction from our current levels. In the end we'll still get ours. We win and give up nothing, the small teams win and get a huge cash windfall, and the only loser in this will be the successful teams that get to shoulder all the burden themselves of keeping the league financially viable." Essentially, Fehr proposed a system where the large markets will underwrite the rising player salaries for the smaller markets but didn't really address any of the fundamental problems whatsoever. A wonderful fluff proposal the get the fans and media fawning all over the NHLPA but in reality it's only slightly less rigid and draconian than the NHL's leaked proposal.

tl;dr version: Fehr says we are partners but it's your mess and we aren't gonna help find a solution. Just let the big boys give more money to the little guys to pay for the rising player costs. Why fix the problem when we can just let someone else pay for it?

silverfish is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:21 PM
  #213
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Posted on the business board today:
Yeah there is absolutely some issues with the proposal which will not fly. Non player salary cap will probably never happen. Competitive balance regarding the draft picks probably won't make it either.

I am expecting the players are going to take some sort of salary hit(probably around 5 percent)and the flat cap will be implemented. But I don't think it will raise as much as the player want. In fact, the NHL may want to increase the cap only biyearly or even tri-yearly.

You can also kiss that stipulation clause in year 4 goodbye.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:26 PM
  #214
Giglio NYR15
Section 417
 
Giglio NYR15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,516
vCash: 500
The non player spending limit is ridiculous...they should have no say or even try to have a say in spending that doesnt concern them.

Im hoping Bettman and the league respond to something today..Idk why it seemed so optimistic yesterday with this proposal, doesnt seem like anything to me.

Giglio NYR15 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:29 PM
  #215
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giglio NYR15 View Post
The non player spending limit is ridiculous...they should have no say or even try to have a say in spending that doesnt concern them.

Im hoping Bettman and the league respond to something today..Idk why it seemed so optimistic yesterday with this proposal, doesnt seem like anything to me.
Well the whole thing isn't worthless, the revenue sharing and flat cap are certainly good concessions. But, I agree, some of the others are silly.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:45 PM
  #216
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,628
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Well, I guess they figure throwing money at stupid ownership doesnt work too well. Might as well try this.
I think the draft order should be decided by which ever owner drives the oldest car.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 12:54 PM
  #217
RangerBoy
1994 FOREVER
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,593
vCash: 500
Have another lockout. Third lockout in 18 years. Another season will be lost. Fantastic.

Aaron Ward tweeted about the draft pick stuff and the non-player costs. The draft pick issue would be limited to teams in financial distress and its determined by the NHL and NHLPA. The NHL put a cap on player salaries but there is no cap in spending in other areas.

https://twitter.com/aaronward_nhl

Quote:
After more than a decade of irrelevancy, South Florida’s hockey team surged back strong in the 2011-12 season. A flurry of off-season moves added 12 new players who helped the team take its first ever division title en route to its first playoff appearance in more than a decade. The sudden success rejuvenated what had been a moribund fan base, and the team averaged nearly 1,000 more fans per home game than the previous season. It has been a long time since the Panthers entered a season with a confident, well-rounded lineup and a fan base excitedly waiting for the puck to drop.

That’s why the Florida Panthers cannot afford to miss next season. The team must capitalize on its recent success, especially because it will now have to compete with LeBron James’ Miami Heat, which will play a full season this year. The Panthers are worth $162 million, ranking among the NHL’s least valuable franchises, and the team hasn’t generated a profit for more than a decade. A second successful season could begin turning the Panthers’ fortunes around, but losing the season entirely could threaten the team’s very survival.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmi...n-nhl-lockout/

Good.

Quote:
“Maybe I’m the dummy, but I remain optimistic that there’s too much that’s been gained over the last seven years to have any type of work stoppage that prevents the league from having a full season. Anything less than that I’d be disappointed in,” Button said. “I guess [owners] can sit here and pound your chest and say, ‘We have leverage and we’ll show you.’ If it gets to that, you know what, I only say this: There’s no winners at the end of it.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...issues/?page=2

They better not trot out the "Thank You Fans" BS on the ice if there's a lockout.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:08 PM
  #218
Screw You Rick Nash
🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨
 
Screw You Rick Nash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 27,282
vCash: 3000
One thing I hate is that people always say things like, "The owners have to be stupid to allow another lockout." Uhh.. the players would be equally as stupid.

__________________
++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++++++>+++>+<<<<
-]>++++++.>+.+++++++++++++++.>+++++++++.<-.
>-------.<<-----.>----.>.<<+++++++++++.>-------------
-.+++++++++++++.-------.--.+++++++++++++.+.>+.>.

New and improved Hockey Standings
"A jimmie for a jimmie makes the whole world rustled." — -31-
Screw You Rick Nash is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:10 PM
  #219
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
Well the whole thing isn't worthless, the revenue sharing and flat cap are certainly good concessions. But, I agree, some of the others are silly.
Both of which really aren't concessions. The revenue sharing isn't their money and the flat cap still calls for guaranteed increases each year.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:23 PM
  #220
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Both of which really aren't concessions. The revenue sharing isn't their money and the flat cap still calls for guaranteed increases each year.
If you read some of my other posts, I told you that those guaranteed increases will probably not occur at the rate the players want. But the idea of a flat cap is a concession. Something they can negotiate.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:24 PM
  #221
SomebodySaveKreider
Registered User
 
SomebodySaveKreider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,512
vCash: 500
I doubt that we'll lose a whole season.

The struggling teams wouldn't survive.

SomebodySaveKreider is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:27 PM
  #222
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodySaveKreider View Post
I doubt that we'll lose a whole season.

The struggling teams wouldn't survive.
Depends on the NHL's reaction today. I don't think we were ever in fear of losing a whole season. But, how they react is going effect whether its abridged.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:35 PM
  #223
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 11,828
vCash: 500
Well the meetings are about over for today so we should find out some reactions soon.

__________________
http://hfboards.com/image.php?u=53946&type=sigpic&dateline=1320361610
NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:39 PM
  #224
mrjimmyg89
'13-'14 East Champs
 
mrjimmyg89's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaneone View Post
One thing I hate is that people always say things like, "The owners have to be stupid to allow another lockout." Uhh.. the players would be equally as stupid.
Not true. The players seem to be offering a much more fair deal, while the owners threw out there everything that was fully in their favor. The players want to play. They will play in other leagues if there is a lockout. The owners think they have all kinds of leverage, when in fact, they have less and less because there are other places these players will get paid from.

The good news is that what the players submitted can be worked on from both sides and something can come from it. The owners put out there something that only turned the fans against them. The players look like they actually care about the league while the owners looks like they just want to make money no matter what happens to the league.

mrjimmyg89 is offline  
Old
08-15-2012, 01:43 PM
  #225
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,333
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
I think even if there is a 20 game delay this year, it will un-do all the progress the NHL has made since the last lockout.

BlueShirts88 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 03:36 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.