HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Washington Capitals
Notices

All-things CBA Negotiations

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-14-2012, 03:56 PM
  #1
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,764
vCash: 500
All-things CBA Negotiations

Didn't see a thread for this. Sorry if I missed it mods.

News from the ESPN NHL twitter about the NHLPA's proposal

Quote:
Donald Fehr, the executive director of the NHL Players' Association, says players are set to surrender as much as $465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. He says that number could balloon to $800 million if the league grows at the same rate it has over the past two seasons.

That proposal called for lowering the players' share in revenue and introducing new contract restrictions, including a five-year cap on deals.

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 04:10 PM
  #2
californiacapsfan
Registered Voter
 
californiacapsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,764
vCash: 500
NBCSports ProHockeyTalk blog has slightly different info:

Quote:
The nuts and bolts of the NHLPA offer are:

– Proposed three-year collective bargaining agreement, with an option for a fourth. (link)

– The fourth year is an option to revert to the current CBA. (link)

– Players are willing to take a lower HHR (hockey related revenue) share over the next three years. (link)

– Current rules for player salaries, contract lengths and free agent eligibility would remain unchanged. (link)

– Deal would include a hard salary cap “with some exceptions.” (link)

– One exception appears to be a luxury tax. (link)

As for the tone of and reaction to the meeting, Fehr said the talks were “frank” and “certainly professional,” but added that players and owners “don’t see the world the same way.”

californiacapsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:14 PM
  #3
usiel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
usiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Malaz City
Country: San Marino
Posts: 9,862
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to usiel
Still not having much optimism. Kudus to the NHLPA for actually submitting something significant. Though ultimately I tend to favor the owners over the players when it comes to pro sports CBA crappola.

__________________
True Story™®©
usiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:24 PM
  #4
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
PA/Fehr made a shrewd move here. Turns the discussion, at least in part, from owners vs. players to rich owners vs. poor owners. I mean, it was always a big part of the issue but this makes it more visible.

I don't know what'll end up happening though. If the terms of the proposal are similar to what's been mentioned it sounds only like a temporary patch, and I doubt the owners want to deal with these issues again in 3 years or whatever.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:37 PM
  #5
stanleycaps98
I cheer for laundry
 
stanleycaps98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chocolate City
Posts: 3,446
vCash: 500
I have a bad feeling about this.

stanleycaps98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 07:38 PM
  #6
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,475
vCash: 888
I hope the Capitals organization before a lockout happens will have some sort of meeting to come up with a strategy to get players to play together... Cause as it stands I believe Backstrom going back to SEL would be to his home team, MoJo too, there is no benefit to that.

However they could either go Dynamo Moscow because that's where Ovechkin will have to go unless he gets a offer sheet they won't match, or at the very least Backstrom in Traktor would be nice.

SimplySensational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:23 PM
  #7
BrooklynCapsFan
Waiting on the Isles
 
BrooklynCapsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 14,474
vCash: 500
Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard

BrooklynCapsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:47 PM
  #8
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynCapsFan View Post
Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard
It's step 2 that's the hitch (and will always be). Partly because there's not even a unified position that the owners can take other than "we want to spend as little as possible."

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:59 PM
  #9
BrooklynCapsFan
Waiting on the Isles
 
BrooklynCapsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 14,474
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
It's step 2 that's the hitch (and will always be). Partly because there's not even a unified position that the owners can take other than "we want to spend as little as possible."
It shouldn't be that hard honestly. And I blame the owners for not providing the nhlpa with audited financials much much sooner. As long as both parties are reasonable, you can slice the pie fairly. I do think the percentage should come down, but given the lack of transparency from the owners, maybe I'm wrong.

I'm kind of amazed that it might come to a lockout when the league looks very healthy on the surface.

BrooklynCapsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 08:59 PM
  #10
um
Registered User
 
um's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynCapsFan View Post
Leave the hard cap
Revise the revenue % split between players and owners
Cap deals at 10 years
Play hockey

Not ****ing hard
you must be a businessman

um is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 09:04 PM
  #11
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
I think it's just a fight between rich owners and poor owners. Rich owners don't want to subsidize poor owners. Poor owners can't afford to keep up without better revenue sharing. The only way for both of them to be happy is to give less to the players.

So all of the jockeying back and forth is going to be about how much do you cut the players' share, and how much do you close the gap via expanded revenue sharing. All the other stuff is secondary, I think.

If the players really aren't going to take a hard stance against the reduced definition of HRR and a reduced share, then there might be hope and it might not be very hard at all (relative to expectations, at least). No way of knowing anything like that yet though, since the proposal was just put out today.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-14-2012, 11:28 PM
  #12
cleaver
We're touched thanks
 
cleaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 864
vCash: 500
The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.

cleaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 06:30 AM
  #13
txpd
Registered User
 
txpd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 40,027
vCash: 500
snyder and the flyers v the predetors.

txpd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:14 AM
  #14
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleaver View Post
The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.
Well, it's not like their costs totally disappear if there's no season. The only way they "win" is if they get a deal that gives them favorable financial terms.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 07:14 AM
  #15
EYEuhFRAYtee
Registered User
 
EYEuhFRAYtee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 2,476
vCash: 500
locked out til mid December is my guess...

EYEuhFRAYtee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 10:06 AM
  #16
bonzilla
Registered User
 
bonzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Va
Country: United States
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by txpd View Post
snyder and the flyers v the predetors.
Alienater vs. Preditor

bonzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 12:53 PM
  #17
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,291
vCash: 500
If you can balance revenue sharing with the expected growth in the league, it significantly waters down the ire from the "rich owners." Especially in a proposal where the players' cut is a flat rate. Basically the growth in the league, instead of being split between the "rich owners," "poor owners," and players ends up going to the poor owners while the rich owners maintain the profits.

The biggest problems in my mind is the term, the %s of HHR, and the option for the fourth year. No way the owners want to suddenly be hit by 57% going to the players three years from now, especially if the current growth is maintained.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:04 PM
  #18
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
That's basically my take on it as well. The PA's seeming amenability to reduced salary growth and maintenance of the cap are important, but a 3 year agreement will never fly.

I don't know, I guess the most realistic way to reconcile the needs of the poor owners with the needs of the rich owners (without totally reaming the players in the deal by slashing salaries by a ton) is to enact a revenue sharing system that gives the rich teams some sort of competitive advantage for subsidizing the poor, even if it's only a small one. Something akin to a luxury tax. Don't know how you do so while still keeping a truly hard cap, but I imagine they can come up with something.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:06 PM
  #19
Zoidberg Jesus
Trotzkyist
 
Zoidberg Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: United States
Posts: 2,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleaver View Post
The thing is that since the small market teams are really losing money, they have less incentive to get a deal done. It would be a pretty big leap to turn them from hawks to doves.
It's the other way around - the small market teams stand to lose the most from a lockout. Without season, they've got to pay the lease and upkeep for the stadium and any other team facilities without any income whatsoever. And the dent a lockout puts in a fan base is much more pronounced and long lasting in a place like Phoenix or Columbus than it would be in Detroit or Toronto, where there's a line stretching out the door of people waiting to take any season tickets the disgruntled fans make available. Getting a lockout instead of increased revenue sharing could be life or death for the struggling franchises. They'll factor heavily into the discussion, I can guarantee that.

Zoidberg Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:37 PM
  #20
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,291
vCash: 500
There are similar divisions within the players, though. Competing in a lesser league for a lesser salary for a year may be no big deal to guys making $4M a year, but to the grinders, fringe players, and young guys it's huge. I don't think Jay Beagle or Steven Kampfer will be very happy if they have to live off an AHL salary for a year. The window of an NHL career is pretty short, and missing a year of paychecks will really hurt some guys.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:43 PM
  #21
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
There are similar divisions within the players, though. Competing in a lesser league for a lesser salary for a year may be no big deal to guys making $4M a year, but to the grinders, fringe players, and young guys it's huge. I don't think Jay Beagle or Steven Kampfer will be very happy if they have to live off an AHL salary for a year. The window of an NHL career is pretty short, and missing a year of paychecks will really hurt some guys.
Although with the players it's a bit reversed on the reward side. The poor owners have the most at stake wrt the terms of the final deal. The low-end players have the least at stake (their salaries seem pretty stagnant regardless of the cap situation, and they aren't the target of long term deals).

Both groups would get screwed during a lockout, most likely. But for poor owners the only good outcome is a financial overhaul, for the low-end players any outcome in which they play a full(ish) season is probably a good one.

So what you might end up with is poor owners clamoring for a lessened financial burden, rich owners clamoring to avoid subsidizing poor owners, rich players clamoring to minimize their losses, and poor players saying "we don't care, just get *something* done." Could be a really interesting dynamic I think.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 01:53 PM
  #22
Zoidberg Jesus
Trotzkyist
 
Zoidberg Jesus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: United States
Posts: 2,746
vCash: 500
Fun fact: 5 of the 31 player reps haven't signed yet (Alex Auld, Chris Campoli, Shane Doan, Dominic Moore, and Brandan Morrison). Also, none of them are Caps. And there are very few big name/big salary players.

Here's the list, for whoever's interested.

Zoidberg Jesus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 02:06 PM
  #23
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
Although with the players it's a bit reversed on the reward side. The poor owners have the most at stake wrt the terms of the final deal. The low-end players have the least at stake (their salaries seem pretty stagnant regardless of the cap situation, and they aren't the target of long term deals).
They have little to gain, but they have a huge amount at stake when the negotiations start negating their paychecks.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 02:17 PM
  #24
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
They have little to gain, but they have a huge amount at stake when the negotiations start negating their paychecks.
They're probably not the ones that'll be hurt by falling salaries, assuming there's no rollback. Their salaries really can't get much lower. So as long as they actually get to play they don't have much to lose or gain.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-15-2012, 02:22 PM
  #25
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
They're probably not the ones that'll be hurt by falling salaries, assuming there's no rollback. Their salaries really can't get much lower. So as long as they actually get to play they don't have much to lose or gain.
By "negating their paychecks" I meant missing them because they're not playing.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:48 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.