HFBoards

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

All-things CBA Negotiations

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-30-2012, 04:01 PM
  #51
HSHS
Losing is a disease
 
HSHS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Redondo Beach, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 17,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NobodyBeatsTheWiz View Post
Any work stoppage wouldn't be anything close to Fehr's fault.

This is all the owners, as evidenced by their completely absurd, bad-faith initial offer. They got pretty much everything they wanted in the last round of CBA negotiations and now they want more concessions.
Agreed. Owners 2012 are arguing against owners 2005.... Wtf!? Morons. 100% with players this time. Not that it matters. Just the owners inability to collectively determine a true sharing system and cap system that's workable for finances and trades is mind bogglingly to the fan. Many of u know I'm as hard core fan as any.... And I don't give a damn about the negotiations nor do I have any overwhelming desire to see a puck drop.

HSHS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 04:19 PM
  #52
Mystlyfe
We're Touched
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 12,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
Fehr and the players offered to play while this is getting worked out, it was Bettman who said no deal Sep 15, no hockey.
Remember the last time Donald Fehr led a union without an active CBA? Fehr had the MLBPA strike right before the penant races in 1994, causing the cancellation of the post-season and the world series that year. No league in it's right mind is going to allow that to happen again.

Fehr said the players would be fine to play during negotiations. What he meant is that they'd be fine to collect paychecks for most of the year, then strike immediately before the owner's big cash cow (the playoffs). The players would have very little to risk (they don't get paid in the post-season, outside of ELC/35+ bonuses related to the playoffs), and would gain all of the leverage in that situation.

Mystlyfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 04:26 PM
  #53
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 Gumby View Post
Nail hit directly on head!

Fehr and the players offered to play while this is getting worked out, it was Bettman who said no deal Sep 15, no hockey.

If the owners are so bent on helping the "small markets" then lower the % to around 50-52% and let the larger markets share some of their revenues like other sports do.

I was firmly on the owners side in '04, but like stated above, they got what they wanted (players totally caved) and 8 years later with revenues almost tripling in that time, it's still not enough for them....I have 0 sympathy for them this time and am glad the union has a guy like Fehr who won't let them get steamrolled by these greedy bahstards again.
Why should the owners be more generous with revenue sharing than they have to? Why should that be plan A for them? I mean, I think they'll eventually have to settle there (NHL revenue sharing is the weakest in major sports, IINM) but why would they do anything other than try to reduce the players' share as much as possible at this point in the process?

Obviously you hope they settle it by 9/15, but until that day comes they've got no reason to negotiate the players' side for them by pushing revenue sharing.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-30-2012, 06:51 PM
  #54
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystlyfe View Post
Remember the last time Donald Fehr led a union without an active CBA? Fehr had the MLBPA strike right before the penant races in 1994, causing the cancellation of the post-season and the world series that year. No league in it's right mind is going to allow that to happen again.
Yeah you can only get away with that move once. Anyone who would allow a Fehr lead union an opportunity to pull that a second time would be a fool...

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 03:05 PM
  #55
Langway
Moderator
Intangibles
 
Langway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,717
vCash: 500
@RenLavoieRDS: Don Fehr: "at this point the talks are off."

‏@reporterchris: Gary Bettman said the league was "stonewalled" today and the week ends in "disappointment."

@ChrisBottaNHL: Uh oh. Bettman says after Sept. 15, making concessions "gets more difficult."

Good job, good effort. Good job, good effort.

Langway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2012, 06:09 PM
  #56
usiel
HFBoards Sponsor
 
usiel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Malaz City
Country: San Marino
Posts: 9,918
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to usiel
Not looking good.

__________________
True Story™®©
usiel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 02:14 AM
  #57
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
I have a very rudimentary grasp of the issues.

My understanding is that there are teams that are printing money ie: Toronto and then there are wefare teams that are bleeding money ie: Phoenix. The ability to be or not be financially viable seems to depend on the location of the team?

Let's play the what if game. The NHLPA accepts a reduction from the 57%. Apparently each percentage point is worth $30 million.

Does that $30 million then get distributed equally to all the teams? Each team gets an extra 1 million? Or do the teams that need $ put in applications for aide?

Does the team like Phoenix who is a $ sinkhole and likely remains a sinkhole get enough to bring it to the break even? or does Phoenix get more than break even so the owner can show a profit? If Phoenix needs to show a profit, how much is satisfactory? Maybe Phoenix shouldn't get help and needs to sink or swim on it's own. I hope the new owner going in knows he is buying a money losing team. I have no idea why he'd want to buy it. The team is guaranteed to lose money.

What is the incentive for these welfare teams to get off the dole? Can they ever get off the dole? Will they be on aide forever? Who is responsible to pay the welfare cheque?

Could reducing the player share and increasing the ownership share be removing incentive of the NHL owners to make lasting improvements?

Dream Big is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 07:30 AM
  #58
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
There really isn't much welfare to speak of. That $30 mil doesn't get distributed evenly, how it gets distributed depends on how teams are spending (because the players' share is controlled via escrow; if most teams are spending over the midpoint of the cap, every player gives up the same % of his salary to get the total back to that agreed-upon share). The teams that are losing money are largely actually losing money, because NHL revenue sharing is the weakest in major sports. And apparently its seriously convoluted on top of that, to the point where planning a budget that includes revenue sharing is almost impossible because you don't know how much you'll be eligible for until you get it, or so I've read.

So, for the players, the optimal solution to this issue is to significantly increase revenue sharing. That way poor teams can afford to at least keep up to the cap floor, and the rich teams can spend to the ceiling easily still.

For the owners, though, the optimal solution is to reduce the floor by giving the players a smaller share. Even if a rich owner can afford to share more revenue he has no reason to want to do that, because he'd just be subsidizing his own competition (from a hockey perspective). So for them that's not plan A.

Of course the real solution is going to end up somewhere in the middle. The players are going to lose, but they'll probably be able to squeeze out more revenue sharing to at least protect their potential for growth a bit more.

As for other solutions, contraction would probably be a non-starter (even if it were to make financial sense the league can't afford to take that kind of PR hit I'd think), and relocation is obviously viable in a few places but takes time to set up, and again there are PR considerations there as well.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 12:16 PM
  #59
artilector
Registered User
 
artilector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,635
vCash: 500
I like an NBA-style salary cap. Just tax rich teams exponentially-like for going over a cap, give that money to poor teams.

And I think I agree with players overall. Salary cap seems like collusion, basically, to me. If clubs as a league entity want to keep things "even", it should be on them to share revenue to pull the little guys up. Though admittedly I haven't thought about this stuff too much, just basic impression. Where else are employers allowed to band together to limit salaries..?

artilector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 12:24 PM
  #60
Liberati0n*
Full Hammock
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,146
vCash: 50
Ugh. The details of the situation aside, I never really believed there could be another lockout simply because of how absurd it is to have two of them in an eight-year period. I mean, seriously? But here we are.

Liberati0n* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 12:26 PM
  #61
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,666
vCash: 888
There's going to be one, I thinks it becoming doubtful there won't be one.

Because they haven't agreed to one thing, they have to get through contract lengths next, and then the complexities of revenue sharing.

SimplySensational is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 06:24 PM
  #62
Millhaus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by artilector View Post
Salary cap seems like collusion, basically, to me...
How is anything that is collectively bargained collusion? If that was no NHLPA and no CBA and the owners got together and decided to cap salaries at a certain number then sure but that isn't the case.

Millhaus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2012, 06:38 PM
  #63
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
If the owners all decided to not outspend each other to keep contracts reasonable, and voluntarily didn't spend to the cap as a matter of course, then that might be collusion (of course, the players probably wouldn't care because escrow would take care of the gap).

You could argue that the lack of RFA offer sheets is a sort of collusion/old boys' atmosphere that's a part of the league. But its a grey area between that and maintaining good working relationships between the GMs.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2012, 11:51 PM
  #64
Halpysback
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,882
vCash: 500
I still think they should bring all the main reps from both sides to an abandoned meatpacking plant, chain them to a radiator and give them one jar to piss in. Tell them that's all they ****ing get until they figure **** out. Somehow I think the CBA would be hammered out in under one urine rehydration cycle.

I should be in charge of things.

Halpysback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2012, 01:51 PM
  #65
CapitalsCupFantasy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
CapitalsCupFantasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 27,681
vCash: 500
Ovechkin comments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...0650_blog.html

If I were the players, I'd stand firm on rollbacks. Why give the owners another out of the contracts they signed off on?

THEN you would see some players hitting free agency if teams had to honor their deals and be held accountable for them.

CapitalsCupFantasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2012, 12:04 PM
  #66
bonzilla
Registered User
 
bonzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Va
Country: United States
Posts: 846
vCash: 500
RPT-Hockey lockout could freeze NBC's sports momentum

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8K5L7520120906

From Reuters..NBC seems a little more worried than I would have thought. Major programming issues with their affiliates and interestingly, the importance they are placing on the NHL broadcasts to continue viewer momentum from the Summer Olympic multi-channel mega-coverage to the same format in the Winter games.

Many other interesting items on how a delayed/canceled season really screws with them... Hopefully this ads some pressure to the owners side.

bonzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2012, 01:09 PM
  #67
Roughing
Registered User
 
Roughing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Frederick, MD
Country: United States
Posts: 877
vCash: 500
Enjoy your Orioles/Nats and NFL action, boys. This NHL mess is going to be around for a looooong time.

Roughing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2012, 01:13 PM
  #68
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
The league gets their NBC money whether there's a season or not, so the real pressure there is in determining how painful it would be to have to give them a free season 10 years from now.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 07:11 PM
  #69
cleaver
We're touched thanks
 
cleaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 866
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by brs03 View Post
The league gets their NBC money whether there's a season or not, so the real pressure there is in determining how painful it would be to have to give them a free season 10 years from now.
Or in like 8 years when the next lockout is, I wonder what's in the NBC deal regarding that inevitability

cleaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 08:15 PM
  #70
stanleycaps98
I cheer for laundry
 
stanleycaps98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chocolate City
Posts: 3,451
vCash: 500
Some positive rumblings on Twitter, fwiw.

stanleycaps98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 08:28 PM
  #71
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_2_s_a0_

I'm looking at the valuations and the debt some of the teams are carrying. New Jersey is at 144%? Is that dept loans/mortgages taken out to buy the team and they did not pay the interest?

Dallas owed $290 million when it was bought for $240 million. Not sure who was backing that loan. How can it be that much if it is only worth $240? I don't think it was originally purchased for that much?

Is there a minimum down payment unencumbered that an owner has to put into the team when purchasing and is there a maximum dept financed allowed against the equity of the team? Or does anything go? Does the NHL regulate this?

For example if I want to buy a MacDonald's franchise


Quote:
Financial Requirements and Start-Up Costs to Open a McDonald's
An initial down payment is required when you purchase a new restaurant (40% of the total cost) or an existing restaurant (25% of the total cost). The down payment must come from non-borrowed personal resources, which include cash on hand; securities, bonds, and debentures; vested profit sharing (net of taxes); and business or real estate equity, exclusive of your personal residence.
Since the total cost varies from restaurant to restaurant, the minimum amount for a down payment will vary. Generally, you need a minimum of $300,000 of non-borrowed personal resources to be considered to open a McDonald's franchise. Individuals with additional funds may be better prepared for additional or multi-restaurant opportunities which McDOnald's encourages
Is there some sort of rule requirement to remain in good financial standing as an NHL team owner and to maintain a certain dept to equity ratio?

Dream Big is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 03:15 PM
  #72
Dream Big
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dream Big View Post
http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/#p_2_s_a0_

I'm looking at the valuations and the debt some of the teams are carrying. New Jersey is at 144%? Is that dept loans/mortgages taken out to buy the team and they did not pay the interest?

Dallas owed $290 million when it was bought for $240 million. Not sure who was backing that loan. How can it be that much if it is only worth $240? I don't think it was originally purchased for that much?

Is there a minimum down payment unencumbered that an owner has to put into the team when purchasing and is there a maximum dept financed allowed against the equity of the team? Or does anything go? Does the NHL regulate this?

For example if I want to buy a MacDonald's franchise




Is there some sort of rule requirement to remain in good financial standing as an NHL team owner and to maintain a certain dept to equity ratio?

Quote:
It is a perception game and it is the center of current debate between the league and the players: what part of the revenues should be considered...

It is not as simple as saying team X is "losing" money. Does this mean the cashflow was negative or that the value as a whole has dropped, was it a recapitalisation, a new Zaboni (what ever) or has the owner transfered some assets, etc. ? Do the Yotes count in that number? Should they?

Its impossible to truly know what is going on, unless it is possible to read the 75,000ish pages the NHL sent to the players and thus removing any PR statement, idea selling made in order to get the fans on their good side.
NORediculous provided this information. Thanks. Obviously has a business background unlike myself.

Dream Big is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:38 AM
  #73
leova
Registered User
 
leova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,257
vCash: 500
is there no way to just extend teh current CBA for one year, to have more time to figure out a new one?

leova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:52 AM
  #74
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 leova View Post
is there no way to just extend teh current CBA for one year, to have more time to figure out a new one?
The players are willing to play under the current terms, but with Fehr at the helm that would probably just lead to a strike so the owners aren't going to do that. Extending it for one more year isn't going to accomplish much because it's the impending lockout that gets the deal done, basically. You just put off the problem for another year. Neither side has reason to budge much until there's something substantial at stake.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:04 AM
  #75
SimplySensational
Heard of Hough
 
SimplySensational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: VA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,666
vCash: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by leova View Post
is there no way to just extend teh current CBA for one year, to have more time to figure out a new one?
He already did this before and striked during the playoffs. No ones falling for this trick.

SimplySensational is online now   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 09:18 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.