@michaelgrange: Bettman -- we made a counter proposal, we believe it was significant and had movement #NHL #NHLPA #CBA
@michaelgrange: Bettman -- re: counter offering: in order to move the process along ... I'm trying to get us speaking the same language #CBA #NHL #NHLPA
@RenLavoieRDS: Gary Bettman: "we are not far apart on the revenue sharing."
@ChrisBottaNHL: Bettman says revenue sharing "will not break or break this deal" and sides are close enough on that issue. Big issue is contracts.
So the biggest issue is that they want indentured servitude out of NHL players who may want to play elsewhere for more money before they turn 30?
They also want to take 20 percent of the players' share of the money--but don't worry, they are willing to compromise on how they split the pot amongst themselves.
I can't see how anyone seriously believes that the NHLPA is the more culpable party here. The owners are insane.
Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 08-28-2012 at 03:49 PM.
I just don't see why they set a deadline and then take weeks to see each other. I have heard no reasonable explanation as to why they can't meet every day.
I just don't see why they set a deadline and then take weeks to see each other. I have heard no reasonable explanation as to why they can't meet every day.
Fehr. He keeps wanting to talk constantly to the NHLPA..
Hell, the NHL was ready to start talks and he was busy travelling europe to talk to players
Fehr. He keeps wanting to talk constantly to the NHLPA..
Hell, the NHL was ready to start talks and he was busy travelling europe to talk to players
That's Fehr's job, to some extent, but it's also posturing.
On the other hand, I'm not sure why you're so willing to give the NHL the benefit of the doubt in terms of their sincerity here. Regardless of their proclaimed willingness to negotiate, their opening offer couldn't have been intended as a serious starting point. Taking a hard opening line is perfectly understandable, but the offer should be reasonable enough to encourage discussion. The owners seemed more eager to poison the well than spark productive exchange.
aaronward_nhl 3:31pm via Twitter for iPhone
Fehr,NHLPA lawyers presently reviewing NHL proposal w/ intent of 'staying on pace'.Expect comment on proposal & more clarity tomorrow #TSN
michaelgrange 3:31pm via Twitter for iPhone
Some details on #NHL proposal; told league to phase in new HRR split: 52-48 (players) in yr 1; 50-50 in yr 2 etc #NHL #CBA #NHLPA
Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger
NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50%
The NHL proposal calls for a fixed salary cap of $58 million next season and then caps of $60 million and $62 million. Under the plan, the league projected a fourth-year salary cap of $64.2 million, a fifth year at $67.6 million and the final season's cap of $71.1 million.
The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow.
Although the league has proposed a fix-dollar amount for the first three years, the league's proposal includes a provision for players to receive more if revenue growth exceeds 10%.
This is a great offer for both sides, though we would have to see what concessions the NHL is willing to give the NHLPA. Haven't seen anything regarding that yet.
The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow.
I don't know how many times I've read this over, and I still don't understand what these terms mean. Lower cap max but no salary reductions ... whatever "contracting practices" are will make numbers change into other numbers. Sure. Whatever they say.
I don't know how many times I've read this over, and I still don't understand what these terms mean. Lower cap max but no salary reductions ... whatever "contracting practices" are will make numbers change into other numbers. Sure. Whatever they say.
I assume it would apply to current contracts, and perhaps not to new contracts. Maybe.
I have no idea. It all sounds very mathular and financey.
__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
I cant see the NHLPA accepting a cap rollback of over 18 percent.
right now 16 teams are over that amount. I am sure others would go over as soon as they sign a RFA or 2.
I would be shocked if there isnt a amnesty clause in any cap rollback.
Which if there is what do the Flyers do, for me the choice is easy.
I am sure the changing of how 35+ contracts are dealt with is pretty far down on the list of priorities
I cant see the NHLPA accepting a cap rollback of over 18 percent.
right now 16 teams are over that amount. I am sure others would go over as soon as they sign a RFA or 2.
I would be shocked if there isnt a amnesty clause in any cap rollback.
Which if there is what do the Flyers do, for me the choice is easy.
I am sure the changing of how 35+ contracts are dealt with is pretty far down on the list of priorities
Amnesty clause eh?
So do you buy out Bryzgalov and go with Leighton as your starter?
I'm so disappointed to say that I'm legitimately considering it, but I am.
Eh, I'd immediately call Florida about Markstrom. If they'd do it for picks, I'm definitely in. If they want a Matt Read.... I think hard about it.
No way they'll give up Markstrom unless they're trading for Luongo (which could happen since the Canucks would need to shed salary to stay under the cap and their demands would fall).
According to wikipedia the board of governors determines the cap and looking at an I think up to date list of http://www.hockeycentral.co.uk/nhl/i...-Governors.php board members it seems like the governors are all owners or top management. So why do the people who allowed the cap to increase in the first place get to say it should decrease by technically 5 million (the cap was at 64 mil. last season) but really it's more like 11 million? Upon looking up an article on the temporary summer cap increase (linked below) it seems that the NHLPA helped make the decision so I guess they were the one's pushing the increase so higher salaries would be possible. I think they should just have the cap be the 64.whatever million it was last season, and just not increase it for a few years. http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...-70-2-million/
I'm glad it is at least a 50-50 deal for the players, the plan giving them only 43% was a joke, but maybe that was just put in there as more of negotiating tactic.
Does anyone understand how escrow works? A USA Today article says that:
Quote:
Players, as a rule, dislike the NHL's current escrow practice. They have a percentage of money taken out of their paychecks to ensure that players as a group receive no more than their collectively bargained share of revenue.
So does that mean that players can potentially not make their full salary (I guess not including taxes) they were promised because some of their money is needed to give the owners their share of the revenue?
