HFBoards

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

2012 CBA Discussion II (Lockout Talk)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 01:46 PM
  #101
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by bme44 View Post
I can undestand how the players feel to a degree ,but I have ZERO respect for some owners.I also have to say that Bettman will go down in history as the most disgraceful president of the NHL.The man that tried to distroy hockey to feed his own ego. IMO
And who extended Bettman recently and pays him 7mil a year?

The owners do.. he is nothing more than a puppet.

When they don't like someone, they get rid of them, look at what they did to Ziegler after the strike.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:03 PM
  #102
JMiller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Watertown
Posts: 13,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I'm curious as to how much money you think the vast majority of these guys are making playing in places like Biel and Pardubice.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many players are getting paid to play elsewhere and how much they are making.

JMiller is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:45 PM
  #103
Neely08
Registered User
 
Neely08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OduyaLaichBoyes View Post
This was fantastic. Who made this? That OttawaGhost guy makes videos pretty similar.

PHIL KESSSSSSSEEEEEEEEELLLLLLL
Yeah, OttawaGhost is funny, too. But he gets kicked off of youtube so much, it's hard to follow when he makes a new vid.

Chara receiving the Cup, Chara "I snapped my fathers neck, haha!" interview, and TT going through the hand shake lines are a "must see" for B's fans. The best are his Burke parodies.

Neely08 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:56 PM
  #104
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Murph's latest article ( with quotes from Shawn Thornton ) make me wonder how informed the players really are :

Quote:
“I just can’t fathom why they are so adamant about the 24 percent cutback
NHL isn't seeking a 24% rollback

Quote:
“We have made numerous proposals to their first offer and offered to talk and get nothing back from them.
Well yes they did. They got a 2nd proposal back from the NHL. The NHL just hasn't got anything back from them on that offer

Quote:
To them, it’s their first offer and lockout or nothing.
Again, not true. The leagues 2nd offer was different from the first in so many ways

Quote:
I just don’t see how not negotiating achieves anything
Exactly Shawn. Did you have the same thoughts back in January when the league wanted to negotiate and your leaders said "no".

I love Thornton, but hope that his 700 brothers aren't thinking the same thing

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...-nhls-position

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:58 PM
  #105
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMiller View Post
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how many players are getting paid to play elsewhere and how much they are making.
It would be. The impression I'm getting from scattered reports is that when you consider insurance costs (Aaron Ward tweeted that Krejci's insurance policy runs $240,000) and the generally lower salaries in European Leagues (other than the KHL), these guys aren't exactly raking it in. (And this is not a sympathy post, just a look at the facts) They're playing in Europe because they want to play competitive hockey.

And though a significant number are in Europe, the majority are not.

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:59 PM
  #106
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,860
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Murph's latest article ( with quotes from Shawn Thornton ) make me wonder how informed the players really are :



NHL isn't seeking a 24% rollback



Well yes they did. They got a 2nd proposal back from the NHL. The NHL just hasn't got anything back from them on that offer



Again, not true. The leagues 2nd offer was different from the first in so many ways



Exactly Shawn. Did you have the same thoughts back in January when the league wanted to negotiate and your leaders said "no".

I love Thornton, but hope that his 700 brothers aren't thinking the same thing

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...-nhls-position
Yikes, scary misinformation.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 03:35 PM
  #107
sooshii
Living the dream
 
sooshii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Philly burbs
Country: United States
Posts: 10,274
vCash: 50
Pierre LeBrun (@Real_ESPNLeBrun)
10/5/12 3:06 PM
NHL and NHLPA met in Toronto today. Slated to meet again over the weekend

John Shannon (@JSportsnet)
10/5/12 3:05 PM
From Daly:"Yes we had a meeting. Nothing else to report at this time." #NHLlockout
Steve and Don. Bill and Gary. In Toronto. At least they're talking.
At this point, no plans for in person session this week-end. Quiet dialogues between the parties will continue for the Sat and Sun.

sooshii is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:17 PM
  #108
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Murph's latest article ( with quotes from Shawn Thornton ) make me wonder how informed the players really are :



NHL isn't seeking a 24% rollback



Well yes they did. They got a 2nd proposal back from the NHL. The NHL just hasn't got anything back from them on that offer



Again, not true. The leagues 2nd offer was different from the first in so many ways



Exactly Shawn. Did you have the same thoughts back in January when the league wanted to negotiate and your leaders said "no".

I love Thornton, but hope that his 700 brothers aren't thinking the same thing

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...-nhls-position
Just wondering how inaccurate Thornton is on this.

The league did ask for that rollback initially. And their second proposal (from what I understand) increased the percentage share, but changed the definition of HRR, which worked out to about even stevens financially.

Is this wrong?

I'm not sure if the league proposed revisions in their second stab as to their initial offer including the five-year entry-level deals (and so on)...

And you're right. By not negotiating, they're going to get nowhere. And that's on BOTH sides' heads.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:30 PM
  #109
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,617
vCash: 500
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=406814

Interesting read.

8 owners can keep this going as long as they want.

Fan-freaking-tastic.

So we can have the tyranny of the minority keep hockey away for a long time.

But at least the players that can use the most leverage ran off to Europe.....

Cluster-****.

EverettMike is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 04:52 PM
  #110
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Just wondering how inaccurate Thornton is on this.

The league did ask for that rollback initially. And their second proposal (from what I understand) increased the percentage share, but changed the definition of HRR, which worked out to about even stevens financially.

Is this wrong?

I'm not sure if the league proposed revisions in their second stab as to their initial offer including the five-year entry-level deals (and so on)...

And you're right. By not negotiating, they're going to get nowhere. And that's on BOTH sides' heads.
2nd proposal restored HRR back to the levels they were in the expired CBA after they reduced them in their first proposal. 2nd one didnt have a rollback but higher escrow which still gives the players the chance to earn their paychecks in their entirety. There was plenty of give in the NHL's 2nd offer COMPARED to their first. The NHLPA however is sticking to their guns on their first offer.

Thornton's misdirection is that the way he is quoted is saying there has been one offer from the league. He's saying they are stuck on a 24% rollback. It was never 24% and they've moved off that. Totally inaccurate.

So is he misinformed? That's what I want to know. And who does that fall on, the union or the Bruins rep?

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:12 PM
  #111
The Special K
Hoss MOFO, Hoss.
 
The Special K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Country: United States
Posts: 3,015
vCash: 500
I love that we, the fans, the reason that the NHL even exists, are getting the shaft with a healthy helping of apathy from both sides. I would love it if the majority of fans boycotted the first 5 games for all teams. That would send a message to both sides that they may want to reconsider the next time they feel like bickering over percentages.

yeah, I'm a little pissed.

The Special K is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 05:32 PM
  #112
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
2nd proposal restored HRR back to the levels they were in the expired CBA after they reduced them in their first proposal. 2nd one didnt have a rollback but higher escrow which still gives the players the chance to earn their paychecks in their entirety. There was plenty of give in the NHL's 2nd offer COMPARED to their first. The NHLPA however is sticking to their guns on their first offer.

Thornton's misdirection is that the way he is quoted is saying there has been one offer from the league. He's saying they are stuck on a 24% rollback. It was never 24% and they've moved off that. Totally inaccurate.

So is he misinformed? That's what I want to know. And who does that fall on, the union or the Bruins rep?
I'm getting such a load of misinformation from every side... It may be worthwhile if someone had the accurate score, to post it in black and white. I've heard that the players were willing to go down to 52% increasing to 54%. That was AFTER hearing that they proposed going down to 54% and back up to 57%.
I don't know what the league is doing in terms of contracts now (in their second proposal).

I don't understand how the players could earn 100% of their paychecks, but have their share of revenues significantly reduced (seems to contradict itself, no?).

I don't know for sure what the players' offer was in terms of where they wanted to go in terms of revenue split, or how THAT worked (it's always stated as something different).

I'm sick of the noise - I just want numbers.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:35 PM
  #113
Mione134
Registered User
 
Mione134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hogwarts-617
Country: United States
Posts: 10,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis View Post
I'm curious as to how much money you think the vast majority of these guys are making playing in places like Biel and Pardubice.
The bigger question is how much are they being paid in the KHL?

Mione134 is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 06:58 PM
  #114
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,005
vCash: 500
I wonder if I thought of a workable solution for the two sides last night?

The basic idea is to try to make both sides happy. We think the owners want a 50-50 split to help the poor teams immediately BUT we also hear that the players wont accept any rollback in their current salaries SO here is my idea...

the CAP continues to be calculated at the current 57% for 2 more seasons... this allows for teams to continue to give out the big contracts if they want. They can honor the current contracts that were handed out.

real breakdown of the money though would go 50-50% to all the teams so the owners get the deal they want... BUT there is obviously a difference between 57% and 50% and this is the money that needs to be accounted for.

This is where the LARGE MARKET TEAMS need to step up. It is only for the next 2 years in my proposal. They need to reach into their own profits and fund the difference to the small market teams between the 43% they currently get of HRR and the 50% they would get under the new deal.

2 years forewarning would let the teams start to adjust their future caphits accordingly. revenues are likely to grow in the next 2 years and by the time the third year rolls around the cap might not drop at all? So maybe the players will never suffer an overall drop in their pay? At the very least.. they wont suffer one for the next 2 years anyhow.

the other issues should be split reasonably between the two sides... some are common sense issues like limiting contracts that break the spirit of the CBA CAP. Others are issues that actually should be appealing to the union {like limiting contracts for younger players} and others are issues that clearly the union cant agree too {like raising free agency age}

Id throw in a deal to help the big market teams too... a one time credit to every team to buy out one contract. This credit would be tradable. Small market teams might never want to spend the money needed to buy out a contract... but they could maybe trade a bad contract and their credit to a larger market team along with assets and ask the larger market team to do the buyout. Or just trade the credit by itself allowing the larger market team to buyout 2 of its players. In total up to 30 bad contracts might end up being bought out.

Maybe the top 8 profitable teams might not make much profit for the next 2 years under my deal... but then they make much more profit for the rest of the contract since they get 50% of hrr instead of 43% after that. They dont have to agree to on-going revenue sharing beyond 2 years and arent even actually sharing revenues now unless there is a shortfall.

make the overall length of the deal around 10 years or so... no one benefits from the next lockout. Salaries will go up if the league grows so the players wont be hard done by. If teams cant make it with 50% of the gate then they dont deserve to be teams. Maybe spend the next 10 years moving the teams into proper markets? That would make these contract agreements alot easier I think

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:36 PM
  #115
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,294
vCash: 50
Allan Walsh ‏@walsha
Why did Bettman/Daly sneak into Toronto for secret meeting w/ the NHLPA? He's feeling heat from owners. Being told, "we can't lose season."

Shaun is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 09:47 PM
  #116
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mione134 View Post
The bigger question is how much are they being paid in the KHL?
Other than Russians, who obviously would go home,you can count the number of NHL players in the KHL on one hand.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/page/...layers-playing

More are in the same boat as Andrew Ference:

Quote:
It's certainly not the money that will see Ference board a red-eye flight out of Boston on Saturday night.

To protect the final year of his deal, one that would pay him $1.4 million after taxes, Ference's insurance costs are $7,500 a month. Throw in equipment, including sticks he will bring with him to the Czech Republic, and everyday living costs and it's pretty much a wash financially. Depending on how much Czech crystal and other souvenirs he ends up buying for family and friends, he might end up in a deficit position.

"I'll end up paying a little bit to play," he said.
http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/84...andrew-ference

Artemis is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 10:58 PM
  #117
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,952
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post

I don't understand how the players could earn 100% of their paychecks, but have their share of revenues significantly reduced (seems to contradict itself, no?).


I'm sick of the noise - I just want numbers.
Let's try it this way.

NHL offer 1 : Reduce the amount that goes to HRR, Reduce the player's share to 43%, roll back salaries, $190 million to revenue sharing. The amount the salaries are rolled back is the maximum the player can earn.

NHL offer 2 : Keep HRR as it was in expired CBA, reduce players share to 47%. $190 million to revenue sharing. However no rollback, Escrow would be increased. If revenue exceeds expectations the players will have that returned to them from escrow to the maximum that their contract says.

It's not a contradiction its a comparison of offer 1 and offer 2. There is no way in offer 1 the players can earn any of the money given up in rollbacks. In offer 2, while they initially lose it in escrow, it's not fixed as in offer 1. It fluctuates as the revenue does. So as revenue increases, so does the likelihood that what is being held back in escrow will be returned to the players. In option 1, if there is an increase, the players get nothing.

This is where Thornton is incorrect. The NHL isn't stuck on offer 1 and to say that they've made only one offer and that they are stuck on a 24% rollback is false.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 11:18 PM
  #118
Boston BROin
Marchand makes u mad
 
Boston BROin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Boston BROin Send a message via Yahoo to Boston BROin
Really looks like the wheels are beginning to turn on this thing. There is hope yet.

Boston BROin is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 12:34 AM
  #119
Mione134
Registered User
 
Mione134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hogwarts-617
Country: United States
Posts: 10,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston BROin View Post
Really looks like the wheels are beginning to turn on this thing. There is hope yet.
If you don't mind me, I'll just be here...waiting.





Let's hope at some point they take this seriously and actually start doing work.

Mione134 is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 05:30 AM
  #120
SpokedLightning
Overpaid 4th Liner
 
SpokedLightning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Tampa
Country: United States
Posts: 6,766
vCash: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mione134 View Post
If you don't mind me, I'll just be here...waiting.





Let's hope at some point they take this seriously and actually start doing work.
I find a girl that drinks straight from the bottle very sexy. Damn I wish they would just get a deal done.

SpokedLightning is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 07:24 AM
  #121
Mione134
Registered User
 
Mione134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hogwarts-617
Country: United States
Posts: 10,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BergyMeister View Post
I find a girl that drinks straight from the bottle very sexy. Damn I wish they would just get a deal done.
what can I say? I stay classy~ during this lockout.


I wish we could lock them in a hotel for 24 hours and force them to make a deal, but alas.

Mione134 is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 09:48 AM
  #122
Boston BROin
Marchand makes u mad
 
Boston BROin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 5,404
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to Boston BROin Send a message via Yahoo to Boston BROin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mione134 View Post
If you don't mind me, I'll just be here...waiting.





Let's hope at some point they take this seriously and actually start doing work.
Hah, that .gif is great.

I'm not saying I'm super connected, but I work in advertising. Our client has media dollars committed to the NHL. We haven't pulled our media dollars from the league yet. We are very close, though. From my understanding the NHL has been meeting with advertisers to explain the situation. Our and a lot of other advertisers position is if they announce the cancellation of more games, we pull our money and move it to the NBA.

We have seen wheels turning, and I'm thinking it is in part due to increased pressure from your friendly neighborhood advertisers.

Boston BROin is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 10:08 AM
  #123
bossfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boston BROin View Post
Hah, that .gif is great.

I'm not saying I'm super connected, but I work in advertising. Our client has media dollars committed to the NHL. We haven't pulled our media dollars from the league yet. We are very close, though. From my understanding the NHL has been meeting with advertisers to explain the situation. Our and a lot of other advertisers position is if they announce the cancellation of more games, we pull our money and move it to the NBA.

We have seen wheels turning, and I'm thinking it is in part due to increased pressure from your friendly neighborhood advertisers.
I hope that you are right about the threat of dollars being pulled by advertisers. These a*holes need to know that the money that they are fighting over will not be there waiting for them when this is all over.

bossfan is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 10:36 AM
  #124
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
NHL offer 2 : Keep HRR as it was in expired CBA, reduce players share to 47%. $190 million to revenue sharing. However no rollback, Escrow would be increased. If revenue exceeds expectations the players will have that returned to them from escrow to the maximum that their contract says.

It's not a contradiction its a comparison of offer 1 and offer 2. There is no way in offer 1 the players can earn any of the money given up in rollbacks. In offer 2, while they initially lose it in escrow, it's not fixed as in offer 1. It fluctuates as the revenue does. So as revenue increases, so does the likelihood that what is being held back in escrow will be returned to the players. In option 1, if there is an increase, the players get nothing.
One isn't all that much better than the other. If I'm understanding correctly.

In the first, the salaries roll back and escrow stays the same.

In the second, the salaries DON'T roll back, but escrow goes WAY up. And the maximum they can earn is 47% of HRR. Which still means that the players are making 10% less HRR as a best-case scenario. Still a rollback.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline  
Old
10-06-2012, 10:59 AM
  #125
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
...

While trying to come up with a proposal that will work (I like AOF's plan, actually...), I've come to the realization that the reason we're as stalled as we are, is that there is no clear idea of where the end goal is. At least not public - not from what I can find. The negotiation shouldn't be about hurt feelings (youtube "hurt feelings flight of the conchords") - it should be about the two sides sitting down and deciding:

1. What the end goal is. What does the league wish to accomplish in this CBA? A guaranteed profit for all 30 clubs? Increased financial flexibility for those teams around breaking even? A way for revenue to keep pace with increasing expense? All of these?

2. What do you need to get there? In the last lockout, the NHL said very clearly that it required cost-certainty in order to stabilize itself. It got that and it HAS worked (the league no longer bleeds money)... But what is in debate THIS time around, is profit. What is the dollar amount extra on an annual basis that the NHL requires to acheive the goal(s) in point 1?

3. How do we get that? Through a combination of revenue sharing between the clubs and concessions from the players, we MUST hit that figure. And in order for the league to expect its players to flip a bill, they must be willing to give them something in return. Negotiations are give-and-take, not take-and-take... And the players MUST realize that the economic viability of the NHL is of mutual benefit to them. As shown with the previous CBA, BOTH sides have benefitted. This is not me versus you - it is better for EVERYONE if the NHL is richer.

In order for this to reach a satisfying conclusion, the guidelines require agreement and clarity. And it can't be a fight. The solution is a collaborative one.

Mr. Make-Believe 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 12:42 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.