HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread (Part II)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2012, 05:43 AM
  #301
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,710
vCash: 500
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.

jniklast is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 06:07 AM
  #302
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
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."
Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...#ixzz26LW0Ddvz

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.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 06:22 AM
  #303
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 22,868
vCash: 500
Awards:
They'll get something done. This is good movement.

nyr2k2 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 06:37 AM
  #304
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,747
vCash: 500
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.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 06:47 AM
  #305
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
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

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:29 AM
  #306
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,747
vCash: 500
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.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:33 AM
  #307
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
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

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:33 AM
  #308
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
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.

GWOW is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:36 AM
  #309
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
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



Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/...#ixzz26LW0Ddvz

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"

GWOW is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:36 AM
  #310
Swept In Seven
Muh Offensive Talent
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country:
Posts: 9,212
vCash: 116
They better get this **** sorted out, it is terrible for the NHL fanbase and for marketing the game to a wider demographic

Swept In Seven is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:53 AM
  #311
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
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?

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 07:54 AM
  #312
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,747
vCash: 500
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.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:01 AM
  #313
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,747
vCash: 500
Pierre LeBrun and Katie Strang did a video on the ESPN site about the CBA. Pierre said Bettman has near unanimous support from the BOG.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:12 AM
  #314
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,335
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
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
BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:25 AM
  #315
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
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.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:30 AM
  #316
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
So far the owners appear more willing than the players to engage in serious discussions.
That is becuase the owners first proposal set collective bargaining agreements back 50 years.

True Blue is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:30 AM
  #317
Kreider Typical
flex
 
Kreider Typical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,546
vCash: 500
why doesn't dolan just offer up an extra $100m to cover the rest of the league? he can take it from his band's record sales.

Kreider Typical is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:34 AM
  #318
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,407
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
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.

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:35 AM
  #319
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,335
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
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

BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:35 AM
  #320
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,335
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by trueblue9441 View Post
wrong.. their last offer was at 49 percent. bettman said it was negotiable. all other major sports leagues are around the same.
Right, I just meant the first proposal was 43%.

BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:45 AM
  #321
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
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.

jniklast is online now  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:50 AM
  #322
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
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"



SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:51 AM
  #323
trueblue9441
Registered User
 
trueblue9441's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,407
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to trueblue9441
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
Right, I just meant the first proposal was 43%.
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

trueblue9441 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 08:54 AM
  #324
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,335
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
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.

BlueShirts88 is offline  
Old
09-13-2012, 09:16 AM
  #325
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
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.

Riche16 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 09:05 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.