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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
