They seem to be closing in on the revenue percentages, and with the NHL back to the old HRR calculations I don't think that part would prevent an agreement during the next few negotiations. The latest proposals were steps in the right direction as both parties departed from their ridiculous positions.
The question, however, is, what about the other important issues? What about UFA age, salary arbitration and ELC length? I think the PA could accept the NHL's desired split of revenue with a transition phase ensuring no rollbacks, but they won't let the NHL take away salary arbitration and raising the UFA age back to the pre-lockout value. And the NHL will want a contract-term limit at all costs.
Some players, especially those who survived the last lockout, are starting to get antsy. Players only receive 13 paychecks a season - bimonthly beginning Oct. 15. Each paycheck lost is one that will never return.
Fehr has 700 total players - some older, some younger, some filthy rich, some just temporarily making a nice living - to keep happy.
Some of the players playing in Europe during the lockout doesn't help solidarity. Malkin,Gonchar and some other players are making money playing in the KHL while other players are not playing and not getting paid. When the lockout is over,those players will fly back to North America. They weren't hurt by the lockout while other guys were.
This has always been a pet peeve
Quote:
"I remember during the last lockout, we were pounding our fist on the table saying that we won't accept a [salary] cap under any circumstances," said one former Flyer before walking into the meetings on Wednesday. "By February, we took the cap. If we were going to cave, why didn't we just do it from the start so we could actually get paid?
"A lot of players have a lot of different views. For me, I have 1, maybe 2 years left. By voting to play hardball, I could effectively be ending my career. Then again, should we just lie down and take it from the owners? It will be interesting to see how everyone else feels."
If the PA knows they need to come down to 50/50,don't lose paychecks by waiting until December to accept 50/50. The NBA players were getting 57%. They offered 54%. Then 53%. Said they wouldn't go lower. Went to 52%. The accepted 49%-51%. The NHL players said no cap,no cap and no cap. They took a cap in February but it was too late to have a season. The NBA players lost 6 weeks and then had to played 66 games in 130 days.
The NHL and NHLPA agreed to change the waiver rules. Starting today,you will see some players on two way deals placed on waivers so they can play in the AHL during the lockout and those players won't be subject to re-entry waivers on the way back when there is a NHL season. Those players are open for claim. Players like Kris Newbury(two way deal/$300,000 AHL),Michael Haley(two way deal this season/$300,000 AHL) and Brendan Segal(two way/$200,000 AHL). The threshold for re-entry is $105,000 AHL. Chris Kreider is waiver exempt. Carl Hagelin is not waiver exempt. He would need to sign an AHL deal. Derek Stepan is not waiver exempt. Ryan McDonagh is not waiver exempt. Do you really want Hagelin,Stepan and McDonagh playing in the AHL? No.
Ufa age won't hold this up. Rfas are making bank, they'll add a year or two to the age. Move on to other issues.
Smart move is to make sure the number of years between the rookie contracts and ufa is greater than term limit. Ensure two rfa contracts in a player's career
Another transition rule cleared up between the NHL,PA and CHL. Players with junior eligibility can be recalled by their NHL teams when the lockout ends. A team assigned a player to his CHL team and they wouldn't be allowed to call him up until his CHL team was finished playing. This season Columbus can recall Ryan Murray from the WHL when the lockout is over.
Ufa age won't hold this up. Rfas are making bank, they'll add a year or two to the age. Move on to other issues.
Smart move is to make sure the number of years between the rookie contracts and ufa is greater than term limit. Ensure two rfa contracts in a player's career
Except it isn't that simple. This assumes that every team in the league is sharing in that revenue equally, and that just isn't the case. The growth of the small market teams can't keep up with the growth of the league as a whole. Without more significant revenue sharing, or a different way of calculating revenue, the same problem is going to continue to occur.
If 50 pct of teams lost money in 2012, that still has nothing to do with the fact that the average NHL team is worth about a quarter of a billion dollars -- a 20 pct increase since 2006.
They might be losing money, but they have more money to lose. The league as a whole has profited from the boon with the national TV deal and corporate sponsorships.
Some of the players playing in Europe during the lockout doesn't help solidarity. Malkin,Gonchar and some other players are making money playing in the KHL while other players are not playing and not getting paid. When the lockout is over,those players will fly back to North America. They weren't hurt by the lockout while other guys were.
If the PA knows they need to come down to 50/50,don't lose paychecks by waiting until December to accept 50/50. The NBA players were getting 57%. They offered 54%. Then 53%. Said they wouldn't go lower. Went to 52%. The accepted 49%-51%. The NHL players said no cap,no cap and no cap. They took a cap in February but it was too late to have a season. The NBA players lost 6 weeks and then had to played 66 games in 130 days.
"It's all about solidarity...but what about me me me me me me"
They're called closet scabs, RB. On the surface they talk about the strength of the union and their resolve, but at the dinner table they're telling their wives "I'll cross if I have to. I want to get paid"
and they wont be playing hockey in 2013 and lose 1 year off of their careers....and then, if they still dont agree to it, they will lose the 2014 season...and beyond. we know..the owners will do what it has to do to get what they want. if they arent willing to accept a cut, they should get jobs elsewhere.
I do not think that it is quite so cut and dry for the owners this time. The fact is that unlike the last time, they ARE making money. They just want to make more of it. But a lost season, will mean lost revenue. Last time, it is true that there were teams that lost less money by not playing. However, this time around, there are LOTS of teams that will loose much more money by not having a season.
And I am still lost on the fact of how can you sign players to such long term deals and then a week latter, cry poverty and ask them to take a pay cut? That is not negotiating in good faith.
The owners got their cost certainty last time. They broke the union and got EVERYTHING that they had wanted. This is about wanting to have 12 dollars in your pocket, as opposed to 10. Up until this season was over, they owners and Bettman were crowing about how much better the NHL has been. And now that it is time to negotiate, once again they are loosing money?
Its about an additional $10M per team for the top 10 teams for increased revenue sharing. All of the teams except for the Rangers don't like that idea. Dolan wants to play. He didn't spend $977M to let $10M stand in the way. The Garden agreed to more revenue sharing in the NBA talks. He wants to play. The other guys want a lockout. Incredible.
So I listened to NHL Home Ice this morning on the way to work, and need someone to clarify something for me -- I'm trying to better understand the specifics of what is going on.
From what I understand, before the last lockout the players revenue was around 73% from the total. The owners demanded that be lowered to 57%. Now, 8 years later, the owners are saying 57% is too much and it should be lowered to 43%. (Not to mention total revenue has been increasing every year) Obviously, the players see this unacceptable and quite honestly, so do I. What gives the owners the right to suddenly say "Oh..we are cutting your pay by x%"? And on top of that, how is what the owners are doing even legal? Players who are within a contract should be guaranteed that money -- the owners shouldn't be able to just step in and demand a pay cut. Isn't that like me singing a contract to work for a company for, lets say, $100,000 per year for 10 years, and halfway through the contract the company comes and tells me "We are cutting your pay 40% because we feel like it".
I must be missing something -- can someone explain the reasoning from the owners perspective? Because the way I see it, they are 110% at fault.
__________________ "Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
So I listened to NHL Home Ice this morning on the way to work, and need someone to clarify something for me -- I'm trying to better understand the specifics of what is going on.
From what I understand, before the last lockout the players revenue was around 73% from the total. The owners demanded that be lowered to 57%. Now, 8 years later, the owners are saying 57% is too much and it should be lowered to 43%. (Not to mention total revenue has been increasing every year) Obviously, the players see this unacceptable and quite honestly, so do I. What gives the owners the right to suddenly say "Oh..we are cutting your pay by x%"? And on top of that, how is what the owners are doing even legal? Players who are within a contract should be guaranteed that money -- the owners shouldn't be able to just step in and demand a pay cut. Isn't that like me singing a contract to work for a company for, lets say, $100,000 per year for 10 years, and halfway through the contract the company comes and tells me "We are cutting your pay 40% because we feel like it".
I must be missing something -- can someone explain the reasoning from the owners perspective? Because the way I see it, they are 110% at fault.
If revenue had grown to say $6B during the last 7 years don't you think the players would be demanding a pay raise? Why can't the owners ask for a pay cut?
It's a collectively bargained business so they can ask for anything they want right?
The fact that Fehr's initial proposal included a lower percentage and retained a salary cap is a pretty good indication to me that the owners had a fairly compelling case that player costs need to be curtailed a little.
Don't get me wrong, I support the players in this one more than the owners.
I am starting to get frustrated with Fehr's antics though.
He refused to negotiate until 6 weeks before lockout....He takes weeks to craft a counter proposal...and now he has not moved an inch from his initial proposal..Being a baseball fan I have seen his act before. He tries to sway the public and his players into believeing he is entirely just in his pursuit. He is the master of Propoganda.
I think there is a deal to be made here as many have stated. So far the owners appear more willing than the players to engage in serious discussions.
So I listened to NHL Home Ice this morning on the way to work, and need someone to clarify something for me -- I'm trying to better understand the specifics of what is going on.
From what I understand, before the last lockout the players revenue was around 73% from the total. The owners demanded that be lowered to 57%. Now, 8 years later, the owners are saying 57% is too much and it should be lowered to 43%. (Not to mention total revenue has been increasing every year)
wrong.. their last offer was at 49 percent. bettman said it was negotiable. all other major sports leagues are around the same.
If revenue had grown to say $6B during the last 7 years don't you think the players would be demanding a pay raise? Why can't the owners ask for a pay cut?
But they would be a getting a pay raise regardless (both sides) -- the % doesn't have to change.
For instance, if the players had 57% of 4B = 2.28B to the players. If it rises to 6B the next year, it would be 57% of 6B = 3.42B to the players.
I guess I can understand owners wanting a slight pay cut, but how on earth can they justify the jump they are proposing? I just don't get it -- like I said, if I'm wrong, please correct me
Ufa age won't hold this up. Rfas are making bank, they'll add a year or two to the age. Move on to other issues.
Smart move is to make sure the number of years between the rookie contracts and ufa is greater than term limit. Ensure two rfa contracts in a player's career
Right now RFAs get paid big, but 8 years of RFA age with no salary arbitration rights? I don't think the PA would accept something like that, especially with offer sheet compensation as high as it is. That way 90% of the RFAs would have no leverage at all in their contract negotiations for half of their careers.
Fact is its the fault of both the owners and players. Pure greed.
What about guy 'x' who works at the arena or in smaller department within one of the 30 hockey clubs front office that makes MAYBE 20k before taxes and his family depends on that money? He's either laid off or takes a 20% salary cut (as indicated on SiriusXM this morning).
How do these greedy ****ers explain that while arguing over their millions and billions. Play ****ing golf on their exclusive course. Even Hank himself tooling around Manhattan in his 500k+ lambo.
Hows this for an idea, the money the small guy loses during this, how about the owners and players fork up the dough and pay back the employees whos lives they made difficult.
How about taking some of that 3+ billion in revenue the league pulls in yearly and donates it to prostate cancer research.
Repay the fans by hiking ticket prices. Thats some nerve.
How about free year worth of NHL Center Ice.
Its sickening the amount of greed these people have. First world "problems".
Player contracts are guaranteed.
What job on this planet do you get AT LEAST 300+k GUARANTEED for working only 6 months in a year? Playing a game. Given first class treatment everywhere you go.
That doesn't mean i won't watch. I love hockey. But its asinine. It truly is.
"its a billion dollar busineszzz yous dont knows how itz werkzzzzz"
gotcha.. sorry about that. but in all reality everyone knew that the 43 percent wouldn't be the final offer.. it should be around 52% when all is said and done sliding down to 49% as revenues grow
What about guy 'x' who works at the arena or in smaller department within one of the 30 hockey clubs front office that makes MAYBE 20k before taxes and his family depends on that money? He's either laid off or takes a 20% salary cut (as indicated on SiriusXM this morning).
I heard that this morning too. All employees and arena staff of the Canucks front office are taking a 20% pay cut and working only 4 days per week. It's disgraceful that labor laws allows this to happen.
At the end of the day it'll be interesting to see how much the players cave. Not if, but when, & how much. The owners know 50/50 or thereabouts is their #. I'll bet that's where it ends up eventually. Just a matter of how long it takes to get there.
