good for teams like us who have great depth - these shortened seasons always favour young teams with lots of depth
Hard to say. For all our depth, we still rely heavily on a small number of players, most of which are injury prone.
Alfie
Spezza
Karlsson
9MM
I don't like our chances if Spezza or Karlsson go down for any length of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer Farva
It is 1 extra game every 5 weeks per team, not a big difference.
It's a physically demanding pro sport that puts a ton of wear and tear on the body. Any decrease in the amount of recovery time adds up over a long season.
__________________
No, I'm not a girl. Stop asking!
Likely people being jealous of all their high draft picks.
Three years of bottom finish gives the illusion that the tank was on purpose. The Oilers probably got fed up with the team and fans of other teams by end of first year, so it became a bit ugly over time. Easy to troll a team like that, and the response is equal understandably.
If the proposal is rejected, you have to put it on the players. If the players feel it's a good proposal, I think Fehr would accept it.
Oh man, if that goes through, there are going to be a billion injuries this season as teams try to play 5 games a week.
This explains why there are so many injuries in NHL 13! So wise of EA to predict this.
I was already leaning toward the owners before this proposal, but if the PA shoots down this offer and counters with something unreasonable, I'm going to find Don Fehr and use his face as a speed bag.
Why would the PA accept this? You've already prepared your membership for the possibility of a season ending lockout, and by accepting this you're saying that the NHL can dictate terms every contract negotiation by using these tactics.
This isn't a good deal for the PA in any way other than by comparing it to the NHL's ridiculously lowball first offer. It's a ton of giveaways on their current contract, which was itself filled with giveaways compared to the previous free market system. It addresses none of the inherent failures of the NHL business model and won't prevent the NHL from just doing this again when this CBA ends.
e: Further, if this does lead to the end of the lockout it is ****ing HORRIBLE news for fans, because it means that this will be the negotiating model going forward. Lowball offers right up to lockout time, followed by lockout. There would be no incentive for owners to negotiate in any other manner.
It's a physically demanding pro sport that puts a ton of wear and tear on the body. Any decrease in the amount of recovery time adds up over a long season.
The players are prepared to take a smaller percentage of the revenues going forward. The players are willing to make concessions to help small markets. THe players are willing to accept a salary cap, linkage, and restrictions on their free agency. And Fehr is just here to ensure they get the best fair deal possible without being taken advatnage of.
The players dont see why they should be taking pay cuts when revenues are $1 billion higher than when the cba started. But they have expressed a potential willingness to end up at a 50-50 split one day but there has to be an end to this process.
This is a good start from the nhl. They are still sneakily throwing in a lot of things that render the 50-50 a little deceiving. And still asking for a pay cut. But its an offer, and the players will surely be thankful and prepare a counter that moves things along. But we arent there yet i dont think
There will be a counter proposal, but at least this is now a realistic point from which to bargain. The owners should have offered this 2 months ago.
I think the number will likely settle somewhere around this (everyone seems pretty convinced that 50/50 is fair... based on that it sounds fair and thus feels right, as opposed to logic or rational business decisions... but whatever), but the other concessions will go the other way. You don't give away 7% of your income in exchange for also losing out on all kinds of benefits and favourable conditions of employment.
Why would the PA accept this? You've already prepared your membership for the possibility of a season ending lockout, and by accepting this you're saying that the NHL can dictate terms every contract negotiation by using these tactics.
This isn't a good deal for the PA in any way other than by comparing it to the NHL's ridiculously lowball first offer. It's a ton of giveaways on their current contract, which was itself filled with giveaways compared to the previous free market system. It addresses none of the inherent failures of the NHL business model and won't prevent the NHL from just doing this again when this CBA ends.
e: Further, if this does lead to the end of the lockout it is ****ing HORRIBLE news for fans, because it means that this will be the negotiating model going forward. Lowball offers right up to lockout time, followed by lockout. There would be no incentive for owners to negotiate in any other manner.
The PA's last proposal had the players' share being reduced to around 52% by the end of an 8-year agreement, but the decrease would occur gradually over time. And if the NHL is willing to guarantee all contracts for this season, then the 2 sides likely won't be too far apart on a deal. As Danish stated, the PA likely will make a counter offer, although I can't imagine it being too different far from the 50-50 split. Revenue sharing, though, could be an obstacle.
Three years of bottom finish gives the illusion that the tank was on purpose. The Oilers probably got fed up with the team and fans of other teams by end of first year, so it became a bit ugly over time. Easy to troll a team like that, and the response is equal understandably.
If the proposal is rejected, you have to put it on the players. If the players feel it's a good proposal, I think Fehr would accept it.
I think most NHL players don't want to sign there, so they have to build through the draft until they have a team good enough for top free agents to sign.
Why would the PA accept this? You've already prepared your membership for the possibility of a season ending lockout, and by accepting this you're saying that the NHL can dictate terms every contract negotiation by using these tactics.
This isn't a good deal for the PA in any way other than by comparing it to the NHL's ridiculously lowball first offer. It's a ton of giveaways on their current contract, which was itself filled with giveaways compared to the previous free market system. It addresses none of the inherent failures of the NHL business model and won't prevent the NHL from just doing this again when this CBA ends.
e: Further, if this does lead to the end of the lockout it is ****ing HORRIBLE news for fans, because it means that this will be the negotiating model going forward. Lowball offers right up to lockout time, followed by lockout. There would be no incentive for owners to negotiate in any other manner.
The players won - the owners basically caved here and they will get more from this proposal then was offered today. Essentially the systems in pro sports are set in the Cap world at 50-50 splits - everybody knew it would end up at the end point - they are giving no salary back, they will have Caps on their current contracts lengths (NHL asked for 5 and I'm sure they will end up at 7).
This is a good starting point for the players - basically the owners caved and I beleive the players do care about the fans more then the owners (because they are the ones that meet them on a day to day basis) and I think for our sack they will accept this offer and we'll be playing hockey in November - it's a good day for Fehr and the NHLPA - they have Bettman by his little nut sack and they know it.
The PA's last proposal had the players' share being reduced to around 52% by the end of an 8-year agreement, but the decrease would occur gradually over time. And if the NHL is willing to guarantee all contracts for this season, then the 2 sides likely won't be too far apart on a deal. As Danish stated, the PA likely will make a counter offer, although I can't imagine it being too different far from the 50-50 split. Revenue sharing, though, could be an obstacle.
The advantage of the PA's initial proposal is that the people implementing it wouldn't be the ones suffering from it. Fehr won't be around. Most of the players won't be around to see the 52% share. The likelihood of it being accepted would be a lot higher. Similar to why unions often give up concessions on benefits and salary for workers who are not yet there (rookie deals). This is a pretty huge salary drop.
... re the post above me:
The owners offered to massively roll back contracts (MASSIVELY) and to restrict contracts and player movement (which is part of the reason the owners got the cap in the first place) going forward.
Let's be clear: the contracts were all signed under the old CBA, which would still be in effect if not for the lockout. This is not the owners caving, this is the owners offering a deal that is not completely insane (like their first offer). To me it demonstrates that the first offer was clearly a PR move and that the lockout was an inevitability. It worked to achieve concessions 7 years ago, why not try it again.
The advantage of the PA's initial proposal is that the people implementing it wouldn't be the ones suffering from it. Fehr won't be around. Most of the players won't be around to see the 52% share. The likelihood of it being accepted would be a lot higher. Similar to why unions often give up concessions on benefits and salary for workers who are not yet there (rookie deals). This is a pretty huge salary drop.
It could be a huge salary drop. We'll have to await for details on what it means for the cap in 2012-13. The salary drop may not be that substantial compared to 2011-12. The players' take will decrease but the actual figure may not decline.
Seems like the League is also willing to drop some of its conditions on contracts. Again, difficult to assess without much information.
It could be a huge salary drop. We'll have to await for details on what it means for the cap in 2012-13. The salary drop may not be that substantial compared to 2011-12. The players' take will decrease but the actual figure may not decline.
Seems like the League is also willing to drop some of its conditions on contracts. Again, difficult to assess without much information.
It's going to be a huge salary drop this season no matter what. Revenues are not going to increase, simply for the fact that the preseason games were counted in HRR.
The owners offered to massively roll back contracts (MASSIVELY) and to restrict contracts and player movement (which is part of the reason the owners got the cap in the first place) going forward.
Let's be clear: the contracts were all signed under the old CBA, which would still be in effect if not for the lockout. This is not the owners caving, this is the owners offering a deal that is not completely insane (like their first offer). To me it demonstrates that the first offer was clearly a PR move and that the lockout was an inevitability. It worked to achieve concessions 7 years ago, why not try it again.
Actually, the addition of the cap wasn't intended to restrict player movement - it was intended to restrict player movement to a few teams. The players accepted the cap in favour of lower FA qualifications, so player movement would actually increase. In addition, players would be FAs in their prime years instead of at 31 years old, which was the case in the previous CBA. We also saw the salaries of players after their entry-level deals increase compared to the previous CBA.
I dont see how we can suggest the owners are caving. They are still asking for a pay cut, a larger percentage of revenues, and considerable changes in their favour even though revenues have increased. They are still getting the players to ask for a pay cut even though the business has never been better or more profitable.
But they have signalled they dont intend on being as unreasonable as last time and there's room for a deal here if the owners are still willing to be reasonable and negotiate more.
They are willing to revenue share. Will they fix the problem once and for all? Or will we back in 6 yrs as the owners say, look, we need the players share to be down to 43%, we wanted to get that last time, our first ridiculous offer was actually serious, but we had to compromise at 50-50 or so to get a deal. This will be the last lockout though we promise, we just need to tweak it to get it right with another 24% pay cut.
Or is it fixed for good. Any time either side needs more money in the future, they work it out in arbitration and are prevented from strikes/lockouts.
It's going to be a huge salary drop this season no matter what. Revenues are not going to increase, simply for the fact that the preseason games were counted in HRR.
The cap is based on the previous season's revenues, not projected revenues.
Actually, the addition of the cap wasn't intended to restrict player movement - it was intended to restrict player movement to a few teams. The players accepted the cap in favour of lower FA qualifications, so player movement would actually increase. In addition, players would be FAs in their prime years instead of at 31 years old, which was the case in the previous CBA. We also saw the salaries of players after their entry-level deals increase compared to the previous CBA.
Yeah I know (re player movement). I meant that the cap was accepted because the owners gave more freedom of movement. Which they are now trying to roll back.
Rookie deals did not go up, they went down. In the pre-2005 CBA they were capped at 1.295 million with signing bonuses of up to 50% of the contract. That's more than they are now 7 years later.
Yeah I know (re player movement). I meant that the cap was accepted because the owners gave more freedom of movement. Which they are now trying to roll back.
Rookie deals did not go up, they went down. In the pre-2005 CBA they were capped at 1.295 million with signing bonuses of up to 50% of the contract. That's more than they are now 7 years later.
I didn't say that. What I said was that players' 2nd contracts (i.e., the contracts following their entry-level deals) increased. As we have witnessed, a lot of players are signing entering their 2nd contracts are getting deals averaging $4M+.
