HFBoards

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

2012-13 CBA Discussion Thread *NHL/NHLPA Please do Something!!*

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2012, 02:02 PM
  #176
rikker
Registered User
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
I disagree. Oregon, Seattle and San Francisco could have teams.....and no owners, just play naked! Four periods a game would be the first rule.


(get it? 4:20!)

I think it's an egalitarian Marxist sentiment. The players deserve the crux, not the capitalist who has to pay out of pocket in many cases to support the team (some claim $20M annually). I would LOVE to make an owner happy if it meant playing the game I love for a few million bucks annually......and I'd happily pay taxes and redistribute my wealth and all that!


If you wanna think a chef could open a restaurant on his own, I'll show you a well decorated restaurant that is boarded up and for sale in no time. (and conversely, if you wanna rely on WalMart, for groceries or auto parts, nice judgment call! Hope you do well with that kinda cheap, inept help!)

People don't get the whole yin/yang of economics. Or politics. But that's for another forum....


And I despise our ownership. Have for a long time.
won't argue with you. i'd have to get a PHD and post another, what 15,000 times to be eligible? but that topic's for another time...

rikker is offline  
Old
08-30-2012, 10:26 PM
  #177
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,850
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikker View Post
won't argue with you. i'd have to get a PHD and post another, what 15,000 times to be eligible? but that topic's for another time...
Hey, just having fun.

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 12:18 PM
  #178
steveat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
I'm not a fan of the dispersal draft..sounds too much like house league hockey. I used to coach house league kids and essentially, if a team was too good, they'd pluck one or two or even more good players and make them play on other teams. These are pros..let them play where they want. I am not even a fan of the salary cap. More often than not..if you have a huge payroll..it doesn't mean you are going to win. The Rangers won one time after many MANY years of overpaying for players. That win was even a fluke.

I think we could get lucky with the contract amnesty buyout thing..I am sure LOADS of teams will take advantage of that..lessee...I am predicting DP, Redden, Heatly, possibly Nash if he doesn't "show up", Bryzgalov...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
I expect the players and teams near the cap ceiling, would balk at a dispersal draft.
But, oh how sweet would it be to see the isles pick up a quality forward or defenseman
in such a move?


http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...0452--nhl.html
Dispersal Draft

Now here's where things get sexy.

Some of the NHL's revenue-generating teams were in favor of a dispersal draft in 2005, allowing players with hefty salaries to simply be plucked from rosters. The players, again, shot it down, and according to the Mercury News via On The Wings, the amnesty buyouts were a compromise.

But could you imagine if the teams near the floor were given a chance to poach big contract players on long-term deals? And by that we mean, could you imagine the New York Islanders not having to convince a star free agent to sign on Long Island but rather having him forced to play there?

George Malik thinks there might be an informal dispersal draft anyway:

In plain English, there isn't a rollback per se, but there's a rollback via escrow, and there's a rollback via reducing the cap without a rollback--which may or may not mean that there would be another round of buyouts, yielding a de-facto "dispersal draft," just like last time around.

steveat is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 02:46 PM
  #179
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 234
Another day.. Another proposal.. Another rejection.. Botta is covering press conference:

Quote:
Don Fehr starts press briefing with history lesson of 04-05. This is likely not leading to good news. Fehr: PA proposed changes to 4th year of their initial proposal. NHLPA proposal made today "did not bear fruit." NHL will not respond to proposals that don't include salary cuts. "At this point, the talks are recessed." Fehr still talking. Bottom line: talks have gone to hell. Fehr reminds again of his view that only the salary cap-less and Industry Growth funded MLB has labor stability. Fehr: if there is a hiatus on meetings about core econoomic issues, we should discuss other issues. No plans for any meetings yet. the owners "want a reduction, an absolute reduction, in what they pay out." the owners elected to recess negotiations, not the union. He hopes he'll hear from Bettman soon about meeting again.
To sum it up the NHL rejected the counter-counter proposal presented by NHLPA because they are demanding salary rollbacks something the players will not concede to again. As of this points CBA talks are off. Yikes..

Added after:

Quote:
NHLPA wants CBA to be 3 years with one year option. NHL wants longer. @SBJSBD
Fehr has finished his PC I'm assuming Bettman is up next.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 03:00 PM
  #180
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 234
Bettman (again from CB)

Quote:
Bettman: what started as a promising week, ends in disappointment. NHLPA did not offer, in his view, a counter-proposal. revenue sharing talk is a distraction. NHL focused on what they pay out. when either of us has something to say, we'll pick up the phone. Bettman says characterization of NHL reccessing CBA talks is "inaccurate and unfair." Bettman basically scoffs at NHLPA idea of 3-year plus one term CBA. Says NHL wants more. Have proposed 6. @SBJSBD NHLPA "stonewalled" and did not move off latest proposal.
Quote:
Bettman raises issue of agents mentioning Oct. 11 (when players get paid) as player deadline vs NHL view of Sept 15 CBA expiration.. Uh oh. Bettman says after Sept. 15, making concessions "gets more difficult." Bettman takes a shot: "if you look at the history of these negotiations, there doesn't seem to be a rush."
Darren Dreger:

Quote:
NHL saw little or no movement from the players in todays round of discussions and therefore opts to recess CBA discussions.
Quote:
As ominous as things may seem, the real negotiating won't start for either the NHL or PA until or around Sept 10.
Larry Brooks:
Quote:
In other words, NHL teams this summer have been signing players to contracts the league has no intention of paying in full.


Last edited by Bunk Moreland: 08-31-2012 at 03:05 PM.
Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
08-31-2012, 05:05 PM
  #181
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk Moreland View Post
Another day.. Another proposal.. Another rejection.. Botta is covering press conference:



To sum it up the NHL rejected the counter-counter proposal presented by NHLPA because they are demanding salary rollbacks something the players will not concede to again. As of this points CBA talks are off. Yikes..

Added after:



Fehr has finished his PC I'm assuming Bettman is up next.
I think they need as many years to a CBA as possible. We don't need to be going through this crap-fest every 3-4 years.

__________________
Homeland Security is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 08:45 AM
  #182
HyeDray
HFB Partner
 
HyeDray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Hyde Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
I think they need as many years to a CBA as possible. We don't need to be going through this crap-fest every 3-4 years.
This is a HUGE point!!!!

I can't understand why it is so difficult for owners and players to split a $3 billion pot.

Maybe I am being simplistic, but I think the idea of revenue sharing is fine. The players should get 50% and the owners should get 50%.

Salaries should NOT be rolled back. Nobody put a f___ing gun to any one owners head and forced him to pay a player $10 mil per season for 12 years. A bad contract is the sole responsibility of management. They should be required to live with it 100%. A forced roll back in salaries should be a non-starter for the union and I back them 100% on that. The owners are the ones who created the market.

I like the idea of revenue sharing amongst the teams to a point. I think the idea that a bulk of profit from, lets say Detroit, to help my Isles is not fair to Detroit. But I think adopting a model of support that seems to be what the NFL has would be best for the game as a whole. Some may advocate contraction, but 30 teams is fine. I want to see all 30 teams do well (even the Rangers) financially.

I think the owners are being duplicitous this time out. And a 3-4 year deal is meaningless. It needs to be at least an 8-10 year deal. The fact that the NHL has not had labor peace in so long is disgusting.

I love the game – but the owners and players are all half brained greedy twits, with neither side wanting to look in the mirror when it comes to fixing the problems both sides have created.

HyeDray is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 12:16 PM
  #183
original islander
Registered User
 
original islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyeDray View Post
This is a HUGE point!!!!

I can't understand why it is so difficult for owners and players to split a $3 billion pot.

Maybe I am being simplistic, but I think the idea of revenue sharing is fine. The players should get 50% and the owners should get 50%.

Salaries should NOT be rolled back. Nobody put a f___ing gun to any one owners head and forced him to pay a player $10 mil per season for 12 years. A bad contract is the sole responsibility of management. They should be required to live with it 100%. A forced roll back in salaries should be a non-starter for the union and I back them 100% on that. The owners are the ones who created the market.

I like the idea of revenue sharing amongst the teams to a point. I think the idea that a bulk of profit from, lets say Detroit, to help my Isles is not fair to Detroit. But I think adopting a model of support that seems to be what the NFL has would be best for the game as a whole. Some may advocate contraction, but 30 teams is fine. I want to see all 30 teams do well (even the Rangers) financially.

I think the owners are being duplicitous this time out. And a 3-4 year deal is meaningless. It needs to be at least an 8-10 year deal. The fact that the NHL has not had labor peace in so long is disgusting.

I love the game – but the owners and players are all half brained greedy twits, with neither side wanting to look in the mirror when it comes to fixing the problems both sides have created.
I echo your comments.

original islander is offline  
Old
09-01-2012, 12:24 PM
  #184
JKP
Registered User
 
JKP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HyeDray View Post
This is a HUGE point!!!!

I can't understand why it is so difficult for owners and players to split a $3 billion pot.

Maybe I am being simplistic, but I think the idea of revenue sharing is fine. The players should get 50% and the owners should get 50%.

Salaries should NOT be rolled back. Nobody put a f___ing gun to any one owners head and forced him to pay a player $10 mil per season for 12 years. A bad contract is the sole responsibility of management. They should be required to live with it 100%. A forced roll back in salaries should be a non-starter for the union and I back them 100% on that. The owners are the ones who created the market.

I like the idea of revenue sharing amongst the teams to a point. I think the idea that a bulk of profit from, lets say Detroit, to help my Isles is not fair to Detroit. But I think adopting a model of support that seems to be what the NFL has would be best for the game as a whole. Some may advocate contraction, but 30 teams is fine. I want to see all 30 teams do well (even the Rangers) financially.

I think the owners are being duplicitous this time out. And a 3-4 year deal is meaningless. It needs to be at least an 8-10 year deal. The fact that the NHL has not had labor peace in so long is disgusting.

I love the game – but the owners and players are all half brained greedy twits, with neither side wanting to look in the mirror when it comes to fixing the problems both sides have created.
In one sentence you say a 50-50 split is fair, the next you say salaries shouldn't be rolled back. How do they get to 50-50 from 57-43 without a rollback?

Don't confuse "bad contracts" with any of this. The "bad" contracts have nothing to do with the spending on players salaries, because, remember, it's capped and floored to an amount of overall NHL revenue. HOW those fixed amounts are distributed isn't the issue.

You can't compare the NFL revenue-sharing model to the NHL. The NFL's massive money is from national TV rights. The NHL teams derive their revenues from gate and local tv.

At issue is the very few rich teams that make up a disproportionate amount of league revenue driving up the overall costs for everyone else. The NHL wants to drive the players' share of revenue back down to an affordable point for the poor, the players want the rich to give to the poor.

I would say make the overall revenue 50-50 and take that 7% the players are giving back and give it to a revenue sharing pool. The rich as sacrificing their disproportionate share of the 7%, the players are giving back to get to an equitable 50-50 (how can anyone argue half each isn't fair?) and the poor guys get some help.

But that's probably too easy.

Personally, I'm rooting for the owners to crush the players some more. They take all the fiscal risk, spend to grow the game, risk being left with a loss every year.

Players get paid millions guaranteed regardless of wether they perform well or not.

Maybe if contracts weren't guaranteed (like the NFL), I could muster some sympathy for the players. But I just can't right now. They make enough and take no financial risk.

JKP is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 10:30 AM
  #185
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,836
vCash: 500
For a minute I had to double check the writer's name. I thought it was Brooks shilling for his Rangers, complaining that parity's bad and big market teams deserve an advantage.


http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/tota...0999--nhl.html
Total parity not the best solution for NHL
By Adam Proteau

NHL team owners have a number of targets in the collective bargaining negotiations. As we’re all already painfully aware, first and foremost among them is their goal to pay less of the league’s revenues to players. But they’re also very much interested in shortening the competitive leash on big-market franchises as a means to achieving a more level playing field.

“The league refers to it as ‘leakage’,” said an NHL agent. “It’s the front-loading of deals, it’s burying contracts in the minors or Europe. Last time, (NHL commissioner) Gary (Bettman) only cared about the bigger picture – getting the (salary) cap in place and getting rid of (former NHLPA executive director) Bob (Goodenow). This time, he’s interested in all the details and fine print.”

Why shouldn’t teams that have the most fans and interest and are the primary fillers of the league’s coffers also have at least a modicum of ability to benefit on the playing field for their success? Why shouldn’t Leafs GM Brian Burke get what he’s been publicly requesting for years now – the ability to absorb a percentage of the salary of a player he’s trading away? Why isn’t it valid for the PA to suggest the league allow small-market teams to trade a certain percentage of cap room to big-market teams in exchange for financial considerations?

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
09-02-2012, 06:59 PM
  #186
blitzkriegs
Registered User
 
blitzkriegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Beach & Mtn & Island
Posts: 8,893
vCash: 500
Under Proteau, the owners are seeking guaranteed profit and also the big franchises get a big brother discount per se...

blitzkriegs is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 05:21 AM
  #187
rikker
Registered User
 
rikker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,256
vCash: 500
heard that the league generated 3.1 billion in revenue last year. and word on how much profit they made? was it Forbes that had the most accurate analysis? i remember some of the owners trying to 'hide' income, in the last negotiations, and i think that's why i don't trust them...

rikker is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 05:48 AM
  #188
steveat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,809
vCash: 500
I think we are gonna lose another year. The differences are too fundamental.

One party has one way of solving the issue and other side has another idea. None of them want to use the others' approach.

I don't see why each party bend a bit to reach a common middle. I am sure it's a lot more complicated than that, but I don't see a resolution any time soon.

Just bring it back to the good old days. A player is only worth what someone is willing to pay. If a rich team gets a really good player, so be it.

steveat is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 08:34 AM
  #189
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,285
vCash: 500
I sort of agree with the players here. The owners are the ones who CHOSE to pay the players what they are getting paid. Why should the players take a paycut. Whats the point of a contract if the owners can just say well we are going to pay you less then we agreed upon

Fantom is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 08:49 AM
  #190
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I sort of agree with the players here. The owners are the ones who CHOSE to pay the players what they are getting paid. Why should the players take a paycut. Whats the point of a contract if the owners can just say well we are going to pay you less then we agreed upon
The players and owners agreed on those terms in the last cba. The owners didn't break that cba.

That cba expired and the owners are laying out what they want in the next cba.

Since Wang runs the isles on such a tight budget, I have to support the owners. I want as level a playing field as possible when it comes to team payroll.

I don't want cap space sold.
I don't want picks/ prospects sold.
I don't want a luxury tax, that allows deep pocketed teams to spend above the cap ceiling.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 09:12 AM
  #191
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
The players and owners agreed on those terms in the last cba. The owners didn't break that cba.

That cba expired and the owners are laying out what they want in the next cba.

Since Wang runs the isles on such a tight budget, I have to support the owners. I want as level a playing field as possible when it comes to team payroll.

I don't want cap space sold.
I don't want picks/ prospects sold.
I don't want a luxury tax, that allows deep pocketed teams to spend above the cap ceiling.
I never sad i want any of those things either.
I just sad no players should get a rollback on there pay.

Fantom is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 09:48 AM
  #192
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I never sad i want any of those things either.
I just sad no players should get a rollback on there pay.
I'm not saying you want those things I listed.

The NHLPA proposed selling cap space.
HF fans have proposed selling picks/prospects.
The press reported that some nhl agents, have proposed a luxury tax.

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 11:09 AM
  #193
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
I'm not saying you want those things I listed.

The NHLPA proposed selling cap space.
HF fans have proposed selling picks/prospects.
The press reported that some nhl agents, have proposed a luxury tax.
I am not a huge fan of Luxary tax. however if small market clubs were forced to use the $ from said tax it could be ok

Fantom is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 12:31 PM
  #194
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,836
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I am not a huge fan of Luxary tax. however if small market clubs were forced to use the $ from said tax it could be ok
A luxury tax sounds like the exact opposite, of what most teams are pushing for.


http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...n-for-NHL.html
NHL team owners have a number of targets in the collective bargaining negotiations. As we’re all already painfully aware, first and foremost among them is their goal to pay less of the league’s revenues to players. But they’re also very much interested in shortening the competitive leash on big-market franchises as a means to achieving a more level playing field.

“The league refers to it as ‘leakage’,” said an NHL agent. “It’s the front-loading of deals, it’s burying contracts in the minors or Europe. Last time, (NHL commissioner) Gary (Bettman) only cared about the bigger picture – getting the (salary) cap in place and getting rid of (former NHLPA executive director) Bob (Goodenow). This time, he’s interested in all the details and fine print.”

CREW99AW is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:45 PM
  #195
Homeland Security
Mod Supervisor
HFBoards
 
Homeland Security's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: NY/FL
Country: United States
Posts: 14,475
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantom View Post
I am not a huge fan of Luxary tax. however if small market clubs were forced to use the $ from said tax it could be ok
Any luxury tax money or revenue sharing money should be mandated to being used to reinvest back in the team. Owners should not be able to pocket that money.

Homeland Security is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 03:48 PM
  #196
original islander
Registered User
 
original islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
Any luxury tax money or revenue sharing money should be mandated to being used to reinvest back in the team. Owners should not be able to pocket that money.
I agree with you but I'm not sure how it can be policed.

original islander is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 09:54 PM
  #197
Bunk Moreland
Moderator
 
Bunk Moreland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by original islander View Post
I agree with you but I'm not sure how it can be policed.
It would be tough because many small market MLB teams have been accused of just pocketing revenue sharing for years.

Bunk Moreland is offline  
Old
09-04-2012, 10:34 PM
  #198
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,850
vCash: 500
There should NEVER be a luxury tax/revenue sharing and a cap simultaneously! If the rich clubs are gonna pay a tax, they should be able to spend whatever they wish. Conversely, if the well to do teams have a cap placed on them, they shouldn't have to deal with the luxury tax. I dunno, maybe I'm too much of a free marketeer.

Let the Rangers spend whatever if they are gonna pay for the Isles cheap owner. I do believe they can have a cap floor to ensure, as said by a few, the cheap or poor owners spend for the sake of the fans and players, as they are getting money. Let Detroit or NYR or Toronto spend away. The game was better IMHO back then. (partly or mostly because the Rangers and Laffes sucked anyway)

OlTimeHockey is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 06:17 AM
  #199
Riddick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10 Min Misconduct View Post
Any luxury tax money or revenue sharing money should be mandated to being used to reinvest back in the team. Owners should not be able to pocket that money.
to be fair tho, if, lets use someone not close to us, like phoenix, gets revenue sharing, if they are losing money, shouldnt they be able to use that money to try to break even? Theres no point in a team losing ten mil a season to get ten mil but be mandated to spend it back on the team, thus STILL losing ten mil a season.



btw, you're thinking of both florida AND tampa in the mlb. recently tampa has been doing better but florida used to get something like 40mil and keep their payroll in the low-mid 20's. now THAT is ********.

Riddick is offline  
Old
09-05-2012, 08:09 AM
  #200
Fantom
Registered User
 
Fantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,285
vCash: 500
That is why you have a cap floor BB does not have

Fantom 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 12:08 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.