HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Notices

Around the NHL XIX | Back in action! | Next Game: @ Jets, 3pm

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 03:52 PM
  #151
Northern Neighbour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan7hm View Post
The amount the players are going to earn THIS YEAR is based on THIS YEAR's revenues.

I am not talking about the cap. I am talking about income THIS YEAR.
In the last CBA, there was an escrow tax should revenues decline. Doesn't seem like there will be one this year, so players' will earn 50% based on last season's revenues. Now next season's (2013-14) cap and "incomes" could decrease.

Northern Neighbour is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 03:54 PM
  #152
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 87
The PA will counter.

John Holmes* is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:07 PM
  #153
source
Registered User
 
source's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan7hm View Post
Devil's advocate here...

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.


Devil's advocate to what exactly?

source is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:28 PM
  #154
Tundraman
GoneCountry
 
Tundraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: North
Posts: 5,425
vCash: 500
The NHL has put back all 82 games on the schedule to minimize loss for both themselves and the players. This is probably the last chance for a full schedule. If the PA / players push back too hard then games will be lost and it will mean much more than losing 7% in year 1. With players scattered all over the time for a full season deal is very short. A tweak here and there might work but the players shouldn't think that the NHL will cave to more serious demands.

Tundraman is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:39 PM
  #155
Mercurial
#lalala
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,177
vCash: 50
LeBrun
Am told league offer also will allow teams to go over salary cap in Year 1 - up to $70 M max - as part of transition rules

Mercurial is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 04:58 PM
  #156
Qward
Moderator
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 13,226
vCash: 265
I wish those teams where forced to scramble to get under.
makes trades more exciting

Qward is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:00 PM
  #157
Qward
Moderator
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 13,226
vCash: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mika Silfverberg View Post
We're probably going to have an NHL season!!!! If the NHLPA declines this offer, I'm going ape-****!
If it gets declined, Fehr is going to see a man about buying a farm.

Qward is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:09 PM
  #158
chrewilson
Registered User
 
chrewilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
LeBrun
Am told league offer also will allow teams to go over salary cap in Year 1 - up to $70 M max - as part of transition rules
Came here to ask if anyone has heard anything regarding the cap and how it would grow or what it would be...

chrewilson is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:28 PM
  #159
sg58
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,204
vCash: 500
The PA obviously won't accept this. It can only get better from here on for the PA.

sg58 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:35 PM
  #160
Pilgore88
Registered User
 
Pilgore88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: East Coast
Posts: 3,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steffeG View Post
The PA obviously won't accept this. It can only get better from here on for the PA.
Not true, The 82 game is contingent on starting by the 2nd. If that doesn't get done they will lose salary from this year that they would otherwise get if they accept.

Of course they could earn that back from negotiating, but they will lose opportunity costs if they don't get it done soon.

Pilgore88 is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:39 PM
  #161
Ouroboros
Registered User
 
Ouroboros's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,798
vCash: 50
Lebrun tweeted that ELC's are 2 years in the latest offer. Probably not good news for a team that seems to want to operate on a pretty strict budget...

Ouroboros is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:40 PM
  #162
Northern Neighbour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercurial View Post
LeBrun
Am told league offer also will allow teams to go over salary cap in Year 1 - up to $70 M max - as part of transition rules
That's interesting. Gets around the escrow issue as well as ensuring all player contracts are honoured.

Northern Neighbour is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 05:53 PM
  #163
WantEggRoll
Registered User
 
WantEggRoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ouroboros View Post
Lebrun tweeted that ELC's are 2 years in the latest offer. Probably not good news for a team that seems to want to operate on a pretty strict budget...
Depends on how you look at things. Going by an example given on offside:

Compare paying Erik Karlsson at the end of his
second year: 45 Points -30
third year: 78 Points +16

Which is better for the team on a strict budget? Now of course there are guys who have stellar first years and then suck. Point with two years over three years it is will create a greater gap between your second contract and your UFA years. A team explains to the player they don't have a handle on them after two years and signs them to a 3-4 year deal instead, and then the third contract is the big one once a team knows what they have.

WantEggRoll is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:01 PM
  #164
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Officer Farva View Post
Not true, The 82 game is contingent on starting by the 2nd. If that doesn't get done they will lose salary from this year that they would otherwise get if they accept.

Of course they could earn that back from negotiating, but they will lose opportunity costs if they don't get it done soon.
The players were prepared to lose money to get a fair deal, I doubt anything has changed in this regard.

While today's proposal may offer some encouraging news, the devil is in the details, not solely based on a 50-50 split.

IMO the 82 game schedule is nothing more than the owners attempting to minimize the damage they caused with the lockout. It really has no relevancy to the issues facing the players.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:08 PM
  #165
BK201
Registered User
 
BK201's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,940
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
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.
doesn't make sense no pressure on the players and leaves them less to negotiate with.

BK201 is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:14 PM
  #166
18Hossa
Registered User
 
18Hossa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,878
vCash: 232
The PA better accept this.

18Hossa is online now  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:27 PM
  #167
John Holmes*
Spuds MacLean™
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5,214
vCash: 87


The PA is not going to accept this. They will table a counter proposal which the owner's will reject, but they are at least entering the actual negotiation phase of the lockout.

This is still very positive news, but the PA has to go through a whole lot of legalese and they are bound to find things they don't like.

John Holmes* is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:37 PM
  #168
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BK201 View Post
doesn't make sense no pressure on the players and leaves them less to negotiate with.
the players were prepared to go an entire year again. That should have been evident when they hired fehr.

all the NHL's first offer did was create animosity and waste 2 months. The players wanted to start their negotiating point at the old equilibrium, perfectly reasonable, one might argue they should have started asking for more. The owners started their negotiations at +14%HRR to the owners. It was too much. Everyone can tell that the eventual deal will be somewhere between 50%-53%, likely scaling down from around 55%-57% to minimize the hit on existing contracts, with those savings ideally going to just the teams that need it through an increased/improved revenue sharing plan. It's the only logical solution. If the owners had started with this reasonable proposal, we'd be watching NHL hockey today, and none of the public damage would have been done.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:38 PM
  #169
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jordan7hm View Post
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.
caveat: going from 57% to 50% isnt giving up 7% of your income, it's giving up 12.2% of your income.

danishh is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:48 PM
  #170
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,640
vCash: 2391
How quickly this gets hammered out really boils down to how the NHL offer attempts to integrate existing contracts with the future 50-50 HRR split. If the back-pay for current contracts (ie the 7%) are not included in the calculation for future HRR splits, I don't seen the PA rejecting it (because they'll get every penny of current contracts plus every penny on the 50-50 splits on future HRR).

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 06:49 PM
  #171
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
caveat: going from 57% to 50% isnt giving up 7% of your income, it's giving up 12.2% of your income.
THIS plus whatever else the NHL is attempting to take back.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:03 PM
  #172
thinkwild
Veni Vidi Toga
 
thinkwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
The players would probably counter with something like 51%, but getting there over a few years with 2% annual raises until revenue growth catches up rather than immediate pay cuts. Also, like nba, there should be some sort of capping on escrow. Perhaps 5 yr max contracts for non-ufa's.

Also, is revenue sharing going to work with those numbers or is it just punting it down the road another 6 yrs. If the players take a pay cut, do the leafs, rangers, habs, canucks, bruins, flyers get a saving on payroll or does it all go to revenue sharing. Do they actually like solve the problem or worsen it again?

thinkwild is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:17 PM
  #173
Qward
Moderator
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 13,226
vCash: 265
I thought the nhl said no pay cuts. Only future contracts affected.

Qward is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:19 PM
  #174
pepty
Registered User
 
pepty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,041
vCash: 492
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Hossa View Post
The PA better accept this.
Fingers crossed.
If they do intend to start in Nov 2 there's not a lot of time for back and forth.

pepty is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 07:45 PM
  #175
littleD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Italy
Posts: 4,902
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to littleD
PA isn't going to accept this.

5 year contract limits, max 5% salary variance, FA age increase... not gonna happen that easy.

littleD 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 01:45 PM.

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.