Better question is what the **** else are they going to address?
Well, maybe if they solve the other issues like UFA age, ELC system, salary arbitration and cap circumvention, the core economic issues can be solved more easily. Maybe the PA is ready to give up some percentages of the revenue if they know that the UFA age won't be changed.
That's obviously a lot of wishful thinking, but better they talk about something CBA related than not at all...
If you buy tickets off eBay/Stubhub craiglists do you get refunded?
I can say for certain that from Stubhub you get a full refund (including service fee) if the game is canceled.
Craigslist you never know...
eBay I would think has a similar policy as Stubhub but don't have personal experience on that.
Bettman insisted the core economic issues needed to settled before they could move to the other issues. Non-core economic issues will the topic on Friday.
Free agency. 7 years or 27 years old. Owners want 10 years.
Arbitration. Owners want it gone.
Entry Level. Owners want 5 year ELCs.
Contract structure/contract limits. According to Bill Daly,topic 1A after the economic stuff.
Quote:
The CBA meeting will be in NYC onFriday. Non-core economic matters include: pensions & benefits, grievance procedures, medical, travel etc.
anybody know why zucc hasn't played in games? thought i saw somewhere that he is on LTIR but i'm not positive. would be kind of ironic if he left the US to play more games and some NHLer took his spot (:
Bettman insisted the core economic issues needed to settled before they could move to the other issues. Non-core economic issues will the topic on Friday.
Free agency. 7 years or 27 years old. Owners want 10 years.
Arbitration. Owners want it gone.
Entry Level. Owners want 5 year ELCs.
Contract structure/contract limits. According to Bill Daly,topic 1A after the economic stuff.
Daly had indicated a few weeks ago the NHL and PA had tentative agreements on some of this stuff.
I think this shows, yet again, that the Owners are willing to negotiate. Players wanted to talk about this stuff first, owners agreed. Players wanted the HRR to be fair, owners agreed. Players thought the owners initial proposal was proposesterous in terms of the split, so the owners came closer to 50/50.
Players havent budged at all. To me, this is a players lockout more than an owners lockout. Only thing the players have going for them is "they are willing to play under the current agreement" basically, forcing the owners to lock them out rather than continue to play. Its a PR stunt of course, and its working a bit, but, to me, the players need to start getting serious and offering up some more of their stances to get this deal done.
anybody know why zucc hasn't played in games? thought i saw somewhere that he is on LTIR but i'm not positive. would be kind of ironic if he left the US to play more games and some NHLer took his spot (:
He got hurt again. I don't remember what the injury was.
I think this shows, yet again, that the Owners are willing to negotiate. Players wanted to talk about this stuff first, owners agreed. Players wanted the HRR to be fair, owners agreed. Players thought the owners initial proposal was proposesterous in terms of the split, so the owners came closer to 50/50.
Players havent budged at all. To me, this is a players lockout more than an owners lockout. Only thing the players have going for them is "they are willing to play under the current agreement" basically, forcing the owners to lock them out rather than continue to play. Its a PR stunt of course, and its working a bit, but, to me, the players need to start getting serious and offering up some more of their stances to get this deal done.
So they came to an agreement on how they are counting HRR?
So they came to an agreement on how they are counting HRR?
In the latest NHL proposal they counted HRR the same way it was in the past CBA. I'm assuming they'll keep it that way going forward in negotiations but who knows.
In the latest NHL proposal they counted HRR the same way it was in the past CBA. I'm assuming they'll keep it that way going forward in negotiations but who knows.
Yeah, but that's not really a concession. The owners wanted to expand the definition of revenue and drop the players percentage to 43%. 43% of the expanded HRR was equivalent to 46% of HRR from the last CBA. The players said "We like the expanded revenue, but you're still essentially asking for a 20% paycut. We are not on board." The owners said, "fine, we'll get rid of the expanded revenue and give you one percentage point back on what we offered."
The NHL did a pretty good job spinning that as a move of 4 percentage points (43 to 47) when it was really wasn't.
In the latest NHL proposal they counted HRR the same way it was in the past CBA. I'm assuming they'll keep it that way going forward in negotiations but who knows.
Yeah, but that's not really a concession. The owners wanted to expand the definition of revenue and drop the players percentage to 43%. 43% of the expanded HRR was equivalent to 46% of HRR from the last CBA. The players said "We like the expanded revenue, but you're still essentially asking for a 20% paycut. We are not on board." The owners said, "fine, we'll get rid of the expanded revenue and give you one percentage point back on what we offered."
The NHL did a pretty good job spinning that as a move of 4 percentage points (43 to 47) when it was really wasn't.
That was my initial understanding regarding the new definition of the HRR as well, but I believe upon closer inspection the prevailing wisdom was that the inclusion of operating costs far outweighed the additional fringe revenue sources in the proposed new definition. Consequently, the return to the old definition was actually something that the players wanted. So, in fact, the latest offer was quite a big move by the league. That's why I've been saying all along that the next move has to come from the players.
Look, I understand the desire to preserve what you have. I also very much understand the emotional reaction of "you're trying to weasel out of existing contracts, you ********!"
Except the fact is that every player contract is signed in the context of the CBA; every single one of them is subject to the effects of changes to the CBA - and the agents and the GMs certainly understand this when each one is signed, even if the players don't. Hell, the whole reason for the escrow system in the CBA is to claw back cash from all contracts across the board if revenues fall short in a given year and, as a result, aggregate player salaries come in over the CBA defined split. That's a potential systematic reduction to salaries in every given year that's built IN to the CBA!
In addition, the previous CBA is out of market by 7-8 points. Players in the NBA, NFL and MLB all have deals that are 50% or less. So there's NO way that the NHLPA can reasonably expect to come out of this at much better than 50%.
We're currently at 47% on the owners' side and 57% on the players' side (with room to move down if the league grows revenues by a significant amount). The owners have 3 points to close to the best case end point while the players have 7. The owners made the last proposal.
We need the Fehr brothers to step up and take the next move if we have any hope of a season. I hate Gary Bettman as much as the next guy, but the blame for the current inertia lays squarely with the players.
That was my initial understanding regarding the new definition of the HRR as well, but I believe upon closer inspection the prevailing wisdom was that the inclusion of operating costs far outweighed the additional fringe revenue sources in the proposed new definition. Consequently, the return to the old definition was actually something that the players wanted. So, in fact, the latest offer was quite a big move by the league. That's why I've been saying all along that the next move has to come from the players.
Look, I understand the desire to preserve what you have. I also very much understand the emotional reaction of "you're trying to weasel out of existing contracts, you ********!"
Except the fact is that every player contract is signed in the context of the CBA; every single one of them is subject to the effects of changes to the CBA - and the agents and the GMs certainly understand this when each one is signed, even if the players don't. Hell, the whole reason for the escrow system in the CBA is to claw back cash from all contracts across the board if revenues fall short in a given year and, as a result, aggregate player salaries come in over the CBA defined split. That's a potential systematic reduction to salaries in every given year that's built IN to the CBA!
In addition, the previous CBA is out of market by 7-8 points. Players in the NBA, NFL and MLB all have deals that are 50% or less. So there's NO way that the NHLPA can reasonably expect to come out of this at much better than 50%.
We're currently at 47% on the owners' side and 57% on the players' side (with room to move down if the league grows revenues by a significant amount). The owners have 3 points to close to the best case end point while the players have 7. The owners made the last proposal.
We need the Fehr brothers to step up and take the next move if we have any hope of a season. I hate Gary Bettman as much as the next guy, but the blame for the current inertia lays squarely with the players.
That was my initial understanding regarding the new definition of the HRR as well, but I believe upon closer inspection the prevailing wisdom was that the inclusion of operating costs far outweighed the additional fringe revenue sources in the proposed new definition. Consequently, the return to the old definition was actually something that the players wanted. So, in fact, the latest offer was quite a big move by the league. That's why I've been saying all along that the next move has to come from the players.
Look, I understand the desire to preserve what you have. I also very much understand the emotional reaction of "you're trying to weasel out of existing contracts, you ********!"
Except the fact is that every player contract is signed in the context of the CBA; every single one of them is subject to the effects of changes to the CBA - and the agents and the GMs certainly understand this when each one is signed, even if the players don't. Hell, the whole reason for the escrow system in the CBA is to claw back cash from all contracts across the board if revenues fall short in a given year and, as a result, aggregate player salaries come in over the CBA defined split. That's a potential systematic reduction to salaries in every given year that's built IN to the CBA!
In addition, the previous CBA is out of market by 7-8 points. Players in the NBA, NFL and MLB all have deals that are 50% or less. So there's NO way that the NHLPA can reasonably expect to come out of this at much better than 50%.
We're currently at 47% on the owners' side and 57% on the players' side (with room to move down if the league grows revenues by a significant amount). The owners have 3 points to close to the best case end point while the players have 7. The owners made the last proposal.
We need the Fehr brothers to step up and take the next move if we have any hope of a season. I hate Gary Bettman as much as the next guy, but the blame for the current inertia lays squarely with the players.
Well said.
__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
