Snider has big say with Bettman for some reason. Snider sold the Flyers to Comcast but he runs the team for them. Jeremy Jacobs is another confidant of Gary's. The owners are hypcrites but you aren't going to win the right VS wrong argument. Snider has used every tool available in the CBA. There's nothing wrong with that but now Gary wants to close the ability to use those tools. Snider gave Richards a long term deal in 2007. The Flyers used long term IR to their benefit. Mike Rathje barely played for Philly and he was on IR for 5 years. Revenue sharing is another issue. The owners want an immediate cut in salaries. Rollback failed. Now its escrow deductions at a higher rate. Weber will be losing a significant portion of his salary to escrow under the NHL proposal from last Tuesday. The NHL will win the CBA battle. They also won last time and look what happened.
Not sure how the CBA will treat signing bonuses in the new CBA. Do they convert into salary paid out over the season instead of one lump sum in the summer. Wonder how that works. The NHL has to write a check for escrow if the player got $10M of his $12M in July. Richards got $18M of the $20M paid to him as signing bonuses. Escrow deductions aren't determined until right before the season starts. Not in July. Weber will have to write a check to the NHL for escrow.
Not sure how the CBA will treat signing bonuses in the new CBA. Do they convert into salary paid out over the season instead of one lump sum in the summer. Wonder how that works. The NHL has to write a check for escrow if the player got $10M of his $12M in July. Richards got $18M of the $20M paid to him as signing bonuses. Escrow deductions aren't determined until right before the season starts. Not in July. Weber will have to write a check to the NHL for escrow.
If you forsee a big escrow, say 15%, I (still) just can't understand any argument against a roll-back...
With that big escrow, in reality, there will be very little room to sign free agents (RFA/UFA) in the summer of 2013. Many players would not get a contract at all, and many of the ones who do will have to take a big paycut. While the "big names" will be able to sign at an insane rate as always.
The players still don't get paid what they are owed according to their SPC's. A certain group of players (lower level free agents in 2013) gets screwd tremendously.
And the player with a contract going into 2012/13 is forced to pay like 15% into escrow instead of 17% in a roll-back.
I get any argument against roll back and escrow altogether, because the arguments against one is the same as the arguments against the other... But to opt a huge escrow instead of a roll back just isn't "fair" for the members of the PA. I doubt the league cares that much, but the players should.
Snider has big say with Bettman for some reason. Snider sold the Flyers to Comcast but he runs the team for them. Jeremy Jacobs is another confidant of Gary's. The owners are hypcrites but you aren't going to win the right VS wrong argument. Snider has used every tool available in the CBA. There's nothing wrong with that but now Gary wants to close the ability to use those tools. Snider gave Richards a long term deal in 2007. The Flyers used long term IR to their benefit. Mike Rathje barely played for Philly and he was on IR for 5 years. Revenue sharing is another issue. The owners want an immediate cut in salaries. Rollback failed. Now its escrow deductions at a higher rate. Weber will be losing a significant portion of his salary to escrow under the NHL proposal from last Tuesday. The NHL will win the CBA battle. They also won last time and look what happened.
My point was that having Snider somehow be a major cot seems silly, considering that he is doing exactly what Bettman does not want.
And as for winning and loosing, that is nto the question. My point is that signign someone to $120m, and then pleading for salary reductions is not bargaining in good faith. The owners want to break the union. I am pretty sure that they basically broke it last time. Now, the union has a new backbone with Fehr. He is not going to get ousted like Goodenow did. Nor is Fehr used to loosing or being bent over a barrel.
A lost season will permanently damage the league. I cannot beliebe that the owners will sign up for two lost seasons in 9. Nor do I believe that they will continue to keep a comissioner on the payroll, who is utterly incapable of negotiating a CBA withouth either a lockout or a canceled season. Seasons can't be lost everytime a CBA is up.
Very clever - I like the approach. Too bad there isn't something similar that can be done for the players.
Obviously the proof is in the pudding as to whether or not people stop using services (and quite frankly I doubt the owners actually take notice unless their monthly financial statements actually show meaningful losses), but the first step is at least to give signatures. At the very least, it's a good way to vent frustration.
Very clever - I like the approach. Too bad there isn't something similar that can be done for the players.
Obviously the proof is in the pudding as to whether or not people stop using services (and quite frankly I doubt the owners actually take notice unless their monthly financial statements actually show meaningful losses), but the first step is at least to give signatures. At the very least, it's a good way to vent frustration.
Can someone explain to me what revenue sharing is?
I mean, I know for example, if it's 50% owners and players, the revenue is split evenly.
A few questions I have, how does it work? Does each player receive a % based on their contract or is it split evenly?
e.g. Arron Asham 1 mil/year vs. Gaboriks 7.5 Mil a year. Does that mean Gabby receives 7.5 times of the revenue share of Asham or is it equal player to player?
Maybe I'm not even close to understanding so help me out
Can someone explain to me what revenue sharing is?
I mean, I know for example, if it's 50% owners and players, the revenue is split evenly.
A few questions I have, how does it work? Does each player receive a % based on their contract or is it split evenly?
e.g. Arron Asham 1 mil/year vs. Gaboriks 7.5 Mil a year. Does that mean Gabby receives 7.5 times of the revenue share of Asham or is it equal player to player?
Maybe I'm not even close to understanding so help me out
Revenue sharing is basically a re-distribution of revenue from the high-revenue teams to the lower revenue teams. It's beneficial for the players as it means more teams will be able to spend higher amounts on players.
Can someone explain to me what revenue sharing is?
I mean, I know for example, if it's 50% owners and players, the revenue is split evenly.
A few questions I have, how does it work? Does each player receive a % based on their contract or is it split evenly?
e.g. Arron Asham 1 mil/year vs. Gaboriks 7.5 Mil a year. Does that mean Gabby receives 7.5 times of the revenue share of Asham or is it equal player to player?
Maybe I'm not even close to understanding so help me out
Revenue sharing has nothing to do with the players. It's the owners agreeing to share revenue with other owners. Some teams, like the Rangers, maple leafs, etc. bring in huge amounts of revenue because they are in very large markets and have a huge fanbase. Smaller market teams don't bring in as much revenue.
The problem in the NHL is that the big market teams are driving the growth of the league at such a rate that the smaller markets can't keep up. Just this past season, total league revenue went from 3 billion to 3.3 billion. That's a 10% increase. The revenue growth for a lot of the smaller market teams individually was less than that. Player salaries are tied to revenue. So if league revenues go up by 10%, then the cap goes up by 10% (and it did...it went from 64.3 to 70.2 mil, which is roughly 10%).
I'm sure there's more math involved than I've described here, but that is the basic gist of it. If a team like Phoenix only saw 5% revenue growth, how are they going to keep up when the cap is increasing by 10% each year? The only way is for the big market owners to share revenue, so that everyone is close to 10%, rather than having some teams at 20% and some at 5%.
"Steve and I had dinner last night and conversed on a whole range of subjects," Daly told ESPN.com via email Thursday. "I think it's safe to say that we are both trying to find ways in which we might be able to meaningfully advance the process."
Although it is not an uncommon occurrence -- the two have dined together often throughout the negotiation process (insert joke about how they split the check here) -- it is a sign that there is an open line of communication between the two camps as a lockout looms.
No further meetings have been scheduled yet, but there is expected to be more informal dialogue between the league and the union over the next few days. Although there are no guarantees talks will resume soon, both sides will be active next week.
The league's last proposal would result in 15 to 20 percent of escrow on player salaries next season, according to the NHLPA's estimation; the league estimates 12 to 13 percent. While there's no salary rollback being proposed like eight years ago, that acts as almost the same thing in the players' view.
The NBA and the PA agreed to a cap on escrow. Bettman/Daly and Fehr can find a solution here.
Quote:
Escrow
• 2005 CBA: 8 percent (in 2010-11) withheld to ensure players receive no more than the agreed-to revenue split. If escrow withholding is insufficient, salaries are reduced the following season to compensate.
• 2011 CBA: 10 percent withheld in every season. If the escrow withholding is insufficient, the shortfall is taken out of the players' post-career benefits pool. Salaries are not adjusted the following season.
• Who benefits? The players win here by getting the league to agree not to take any shortfall from their salaries the following season. Since there will be no rollback of existing salaries, the escrow system will likely be stretched to its limits in the early years of this agreement, and the players' salary losses are capped at 10 percent no matter what happens.
That will remain the biggest issue moving forward in these talks, but the future structure of individual player contracts is a close No. 2.
"Why don't we say 1A," said Daly, stressing the importance of the issue. "It's not even the long-term contracts necessarily, although that in itself is an issue. I think it's the contracts that cheat the system."
The NHL is right about the contract structure stuff. Daly should be pointing the finger at Leopold. 2 14 year contracts.
I don't think Leopold deserves any blame. He's just taking advantage of what's in front of him.
I think loopholes in the tax system should be closed, but I'll still take advantage of everyone available to me. I don't think I should have to apologize for that, like the owners shouldn't have to for wanting change in a system that they've been, as a whole, taking advantage of.
I don't think Leopold deserves any blame. He's just taking advantage of what's in front of him.
I think loopholes in the tax system should be closed, but I'll still take advantage of everyone available to me. I don't think I should have to apologize for that, like the owners shouldn't have to for wanting change in a system that they've been, as a whole, taking advantage of.
Yes and no, exploitation and blatant misuse of loopholes in any system often lead to things that were legitimate and useful to everyone else being changed or made illegal. It's not always as black and white as just closing a loophole and putting an end to exploitation without having effects on other things.
I don't necessarily blame people who unapologetically exploit things, (especially the given example of the tax system, which is another thing entirely) but at the same time selfishness like that can ruin a good thing. Maybe if the contract loopholes weren't exploited in the first place, they would have one less major issue to deal with this time around during CBA negotiations. Let's face it though, the owners don't give a damn at all if we miss hockey because of it. Really it's the fans who are the biggest losers, as usual.
__________________
"I used to pray for good things . I used to ask the Hockey Gods for puck luck for the NYR .
Now all I want is Torts the smug stupid goatee clown to be fired , . I hate Torts . Please hockey gods make him get fired. Please Sean punch him in face" -- Dorado
To a point. Carter and Richards are not exactly cheap.
And I am not even sure what so-called management powers they lost. Bettman got the owners EVERYTHING that they wanted. And now, AGAIN they are complaining about rising salaries? Who asked them to give out such contracts? And the joke of it is, that they continue to give them out as we speak. Telling a player that he cannot be a free agent until he has 10 years of service time is not a management power. You cannot simply set collective bargaining back 50 years becuase you feel like it. The NFL is an owners league. Somewhow, they still believe in free agency.
What management powers did they loose? That the union denied them a realignment? Again, welcome to the world of a CBA.
That is exactly the management power they "gave" in the last CBA--players had the ability to prevent the league from going ahead with realignment. And, since the players didn't like their proposal--which I thought was unfair (uneven conferences) and bad for rivalaries (the Rangers would see teams outside their division once a year at the Garden--increasing games with Western teams, while decreasing games with rivals like Boston, Montreal, Toronto, and Buffalo), now they want it back.
I also wonder if this has something to do with the players participating in the Olympics in 2014--Bettman has indicated in the past the league would prefer not to participate, while it's something many players (including I bet Lundqvist) are eager to do again.
That is exactly the management power they "gave" in the last CBA--players had the ability to prevent the league from going ahead with realignment. And, since the players didn't like their proposal--which I thought was unfair (uneven conferences) and bad for rivalaries (the Rangers would see teams outside their division once a year at the Garden--increasing games with Western teams, while decreasing games with rivals like Boston, Montreal, Toronto, and Buffalo), now they want it back.
I also wonder if this has something to do with the players participating in the Olympics in 2014--Bettman has indicated in the past the league would prefer not to participate, while it's something many players (including I bet Lundqvist) are eager to do again.
Rangers rivals--I would prefer to see the teams you highlighted twice a year, than have to sit through a bunch of teams the Rangers have never faced in the playoffs.
Rangers rivals--I would prefer to see the teams you highlighted twice a year, than have to sit through a bunch of teams the Rangers have never faced in the playoffs.
When was the last time the Rangers faced Boston, Montreal or Toronto in the playoffs?
I think Montreal was the most recent -- a solid 16 years ago.
When was the last time the Rangers faced Boston, Montreal or Toronto in the playoffs?
I think Montreal was the most recent -- a solid 16 years ago.
How quickly we forget that those teams are also part of the Original Six (survivers). I'd rather see a game between those teams than game against Anaheim or Phoenix or San Jose, or Nashville, or Dallas, or....
How quickly we forget that those teams are also part of the Original Six (survivers). I'd rather see a game between those teams than game against Anaheim or Phoenix or San Jose, or Nashville, or Dallas, or....
Then shouldn't you be thrilled that Detroit and Chicago are going to be coming to MSG every year?
I couldn't care less about the original six teams, but that's me.
Then shouldn't you be thrilled that Detroit and Chicago are going to be coming to MSG every year?
I couldn't care less about the original six teams, but that's me.
Less so than Montreal, Toronto and Boston, but I've always liked seeing Detroit. However, I'd give up the game with them (every 3rd year) to continue seeing teams in the Eastern Conference twice a year.
Less so than Montreal, Toronto and Boston, but I've always liked seeing Detroit. However, I'd give up the game with them (every 3rd year) to continue seeing teams in the Eastern Conference twice a year.
Yeah, I personally don't care, but I'm not going to tell you what to care about.
Being a West Coast Ranger fan, I like the idea of them visiting Vancouver every year.
