HFBoards

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

2012 CBA & Re-alignment: Lockout in Effect. Thanks Gary/Donald! PART II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 10:23 AM
  #251
Gooch
Registered User
 
Gooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho
Country: United States
Posts: 14,013
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
Another thing the players should understand is, this was a last ditch effort by the league to save the full season. If the PA flubs this up things won't get better in terms of the owners being "fair".

I don't think many players have a problem with the 50/50. Cuz all the other major sports have that. The problem is the cash they expect from their contracts right now. They want that money and if they don't like the mechanism in which they get it back, this will go no where.
They stand to likely lose a lot more cash by sitting this entire season out. If that is their sole reasoning then it's pretty foolish especially when there's plenty of former players trying to warn them it's not worth it.

Gooch is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:35 AM
  #252
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanh View Post
NHL actually posted their proposal on nhl.com:
They are assuming 5% growth for their "make whole" provision.....

Edit:

This is going to be coming from the players share. So essentially it looks almost like player welfare for these payments. When a player retires they will still be receiving these payments and the burden will go on the current players...

Not sure the players will go for this. I dunno...


Last edited by Mr Jiggyfly: 10-17-2012 at 10:55 AM.
Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 10:42 AM
  #253
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooch View Post
They stand to likely lose a lot more cash by sitting this entire season out. If that is their sole reasoning then it's pretty foolish especially when there's plenty of former players trying to warn them it's not worth it.
Agreed.
The hope, for me atleast, is the players make this work and they don't take hard stances with the direction of dick waving PA heads.

SidTheKid8787 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:04 AM
  #254
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
McKenzie saying the offer not received with great enthusiasm. Hopefully that's just a Fehr tactic leading into a counter-proposal on Thursday that keeps the same HRR split, and starts moving numbers on things like ELC, FA etc... the ole back-and-forth method of negotiating where something actually gets done when they arrive at "middle numbers".

TSN's summary of the proposal.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407541

1. I don't know why anyone would favor (as a fan) 2 year ELCs. that means every great young player we get, they're going to be asking for the big money after 2 years. If anything fans should want the opposite: a 4 year ELC. I think they should keep the number of years to UFA the same to keep something for the players whose careers are short, but increase ELCs to 4 years so that fans get to see great young players for longer, before they potentially have to leave in FA for big money.

2. A lot of this depends on how HRR is defined still. Apparently the NHL was not specific on this so they could be hiding extra cuts from teh players by redefining what HRR means again.

3. Players will lose my faith if they don't at least counter with a proposal that starts with some of teh same conditions (like 50/50 depending on what HRR means), either the current proposal for UFA age or arbitration rules, etc. If they come back with something totally different then I'm officially in the "**** them both" camp.

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:17 AM
  #255
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 21,948
vCash: 500
I think the idea is that with a 2 year ELC and a 5 year contract limit we'd see the return of "2nd contracts".

wej20 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:39 AM
  #256
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
The 2 year elc is an awesome deal for the owners for the majority of players. For the superstar, it's great for the player and sucks for the team. For example, do you really think Taylor Hall or Jordan Eberle would have gotten huge bucks after only 2 seasons? Most NHL players take a few years to really learn the pro game and hit their prime. After 2 years they will likely get a few year mid level contract before they hit their big break. Staal is a decent example as well. At the end of his second season, there's no way he gets the 4 mil he got. He followed up a 42 point rookie campaign with 28 points. There's no way in hell Shero signs him to 4 mil per. In this scenario Staal probably signs a 3 year 3 mil or so contract and then moves on to the bigger contract after 5 seasons. I really think it's great for owners and also fans.

2. HRR Accounting:

• Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

So to me that means the current definition of HRR. Where there is confusion on the existing interpretations, they will iron those details out.

• Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

I love this as well. Even if players push back on contract length and they settle on 7 or 8 years there won't be any cap circumventing deals.


Last edited by Shady Machine: 10-17-2012 at 11:45 AM.
Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:50 AM
  #257
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
They are assuming 5% growth for their "make whole" provision.....

Edit:

This is going to be coming from the players share. So essentially it looks almost like player welfare for these payments. When a player retires they will still be receiving these payments and the burden will go on the current players...

Not sure the players will go for this. I dunno...
As I read it, the players will be paid any deferred payments in the later years of their contracts. So in theory, they would be completely repaid by the end of the contract (or in the case of your contract being up, you'd be repaid in the following year). They wouldn't receive these payments after they retire as you allude to. Of course, that's how the NHL states it but it does leave some room for interpretation. If revenue doesn't grow at a high enough rate there may not be enough money to pay out the deferred payments.

Here's the actual language:

• The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:56 AM
  #258
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
I'm looking at the NHL proposal and there's an awful lot of stuff I don't really like in it as a fan with regards to a softer cap, the transition cap, rolling back salaries via escrow but keeping their cap hits the same while reducing the cap, and honestly, it still sort of sounds like the NHL's asking for too much from the players. . .

they wanna shorten ELCs, delay UFA, contracts length limits, and reducing the players cut. . . what the hell do the players get in all of this? I mean, standard negotiating you've got to give something up to get what you want. Yes I realize the players are filthy ****ing rich but why should the NHL expect them to be anything less than insulted over an offer that they lose something on every front on.

Also it really concerns me that none of this is really addressing the health of the league- the poor revenue sharing system & the inability to move teams out of failed sunbelt markets like Phoenix without Bettman blocking it.



Also, this scares the **** out of me.
"All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term."

"• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league."

I mean, holy crap that's just vindictive against teams with anyone signed for over 5 years, especially Kovalchuk and Ovechkin with the Russia threat.


I don't know, I feel like this could be bad for the league as a whole with maybe more talented Russians staying in Russia because teams won't want to take the risk of having a KHL salary counting against their cap.


Last edited by SkullSplitter: 10-17-2012 at 12:02 PM.
SkullSplitter is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:11 PM
  #259
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
Just read Fehr's letter to the players. Damn this man. Yeah he works for the players, but he is like a politician twisting things in their favor. It almost seemed like he wanted to rile the up the players in the letter. I'm not sure we are any closer to a deal.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:15 PM
  #260
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkullSplitter View Post
I'm looking at the NHL proposal and there's an awful lot of stuff I don't really like in it as a fan with regards to a softer cap, the transition cap, rolling back salaries via escrow but keeping their cap hits the same while reducing the cap, and honestly, it still sort of sounds like the NHL's asking for too much from the players. . .

they wanna shorten ELCs, delay UFA, contracts length limits, and reducing the players cut. . . what the hell do the players get in all of this? I mean, standard negotiating you've got to give something up to get what you want. Yes I realize the players are filthy ****ing rich but why should the NHL expect them to be anything less than insulted over an offer that they lose something on every front on.

Also it really concerns me that none of this is really addressing the health of the league- the poor revenue sharing system & the inability to move teams out of failed sunbelt markets like Phoenix without Bettman blocking it.



Also, this scares the **** out of me.
"All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term."

"• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league."

I mean, holy crap that's just vindictive against teams with anyone signed for over 5 years, especially Kovalchuk and Ovechkin with the Russia threat.


I don't know, I feel like this could be bad for the league as a whole with maybe more talented Russians staying in Russia because teams won't want to take the risk of having a KHL salary counting against their cap.
I don't think the players have a problem with a shorter ELC.

And I think you misunderstood the last part KHL salary will not count against the cap. But a player who gets sent to the AHL or whatever professional league has his NHL Cap hit counting against his teams cap. You could also call it the Wade Redden rule and I like it.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:21 PM
  #261
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
I think the idea is that with a 2 year ELC and a 5 year contract limit we'd see the return of "2nd contracts".
Ah that's a good point. I can see the logic, although I don't know it will work in practice much better than what we have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
The 2 year elc is an awesome deal for the owners for the majority of players. For the superstar, it's great for the player and sucks for the team. For example, do you really think Taylor Hall or Jordan Eberle would have gotten huge bucks after only 2 seasons?
Actually yah. I think when "all star draft picks" like Stamkos, Tavares, Hall get anywhere in the 30G neighborhood in their first two years, they'll get paid big, especially if there's an upward trend (like 27G to 32G). I don't think subtracting that year will suddenly yield a big reduction in their per-year value. Salaries will escalate just like they always have. However the 5 year bit MIGHT put a little dent in that when you start combining rules.

I wonder if they ought to think about having a maximum per year salary and then making sure 2nd contract players are never more than 80% of that or something like that. Might cut out some of the nonsense we get from agents as well if they know there's only so much they can ask for in a certain situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Just read Fehr's letter to the players. Damn this man. Yeah he works for the players, but he is like a politician twisting things in their favor. It almost seemed like he wanted to rile the up the players in the letter. I'm not sure we are any closer to a deal.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542
Probably not but we can hope.

Also these two comments seem contradictory (so yes, like a politician... however unlike a politician I don't see what the immediate benefit to him is).

Quote:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.

- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.


Last edited by Darth Vitale: 10-17-2012 at 12:26 PM.
Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:26 PM
  #262
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Just read Fehr's letter to the players. Damn this man. Yeah he works for the players, but he is like a politician twisting things in their favor. It almost seemed like he wanted to rile the up the players in the letter. I'm not sure we are any closer to a deal.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542
Just read it as well.
Glad Bob posted it cuz it really shows me what kind of slant Fehr is trickling down to the union members.
Players need to stop commenting about it though, it is really making them look worse in this thing. Let Fehr do all the talking.

SidTheKid8787 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
  #263
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
As I read it, the players will be paid any deferred payments in the later years of their contracts. So in theory, they would be completely repaid by the end of the contract (or in the case of your contract being up, you'd be repaid in the following year). They wouldn't receive these payments after they retire as you allude to. Of course, that's how the NHL states it but it does leave some room for interpretation. If revenue doesn't grow at a high enough rate there may not be enough money to pay out the deferred payments.
If a player retires at the end of his contract, he will be getting paid the final deferment, the following year, when he is in fact in retirement, correct?

The language leaves a lot to be interpreted, which is why I'm sure the NHLPA has questions.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:37 PM
  #264
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Just read Fehr's letter to the players. Damn this man. Yeah he works for the players, but he is like a politician twisting things in their favor. It almost seemed like he wanted to rile the up the players in the letter. I'm not sure we are any closer to a deal.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542
He isn't going to say "this is a sweet" deal. I think we all know that. He has to make some pushbacks to get the best deal he can.

He has a point that UFA and other points of contention should at the very least, remain the same.

He also made the point I have been trying to get across to some thick individuals on the business forum, that the players are reducing their cut of the pie significantly, but what are they getting in return? Nothing...

I suppose one could argue that meaningful RS is the owner's concession, but that seems a little preposterous.

I think we all have to not ride the roller coaster for the next week or so because both sides will be playing mind games with each other...

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:38 PM
  #265
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
Also these two comments seem contradictory (so yes, like a politician... however unlike a politician I don't see what the immediate benefit to him is).
They are contradictory but all about controlling the PR angle (like the NHL just did). They say "we don't think we should have to give a reduction in % of HRR since we gave in last time, but we are willing to do so to help the league". That basically takes any "blame" off the players for being greedy and on the flip side shows them being nice by trying to help out the league. Totally political and totally ********.

Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:43 PM
  #266
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
If a player retires at the end of his contract, he will be getting paid the final deferment, the following year, when he is in fact in retirement, correct?

The language leaves a lot to be interpreted, which is why I'm sure the NHLPA has questions.
Yeah that's how I read it. However, like you said it's pretty vague and I caught something in the details after reading the Fehr article (it makes sense and I should have caught it before). So the NHL will honor the value of the contracts by paying the deferred payments in later years of the contract or in year after the contract.

However, "Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits."

If I read this correctly, it sounds like the deferred payments come out of the players' 50% share of HRR in those future years. So in reality, the NHL isn't paying the full value of those contracts, the players are paying for their current contracts by reducing the pool for their future contracts. It will really be a wash though since revenue will likely continue to increase but the players won't like that one bit.

Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:45 PM
  #267
Shady Machine
Registered User
 
Shady Machine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,458
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
He isn't going to say "this is a sweet" deal. I think we all know that. He has to make some pushbacks to get the best deal he can.

He has a point that UFA and other points of contention should at the very least, remain the same.

He also made the point I have been trying to get across to some thick individuals on the business forum, that the players are reducing their cut of the pie significantly, but what are they getting in return? Nothing...

I suppose one could argue that meaningful RS is the owner's concession, but that seems a little preposterous.

I think we all have to not ride the roller coaster for the next week or so because both sides will be playing mind games with each other...
Yeah that's the struggle I have. I'm trying not to get caught up in the PR battle, but damn are they good at spinning things.

Shady Machine is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:46 PM
  #268
BlindWillyMcHurt
Registered User
 
BlindWillyMcHurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,835
vCash: 500
They ought to be after going through this three times in somewhat-recent history.

BlindWillyMcHurt is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:57 PM
  #269
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shady Machine View Post
Yeah that's how I read it. However, like you said it's pretty vague and I caught something in the details after reading the Fehr article (it makes sense and I should have caught it before). So the NHL will honor the value of the contracts by paying the deferred payments in later years of the contract or in year after the contract.

However, "Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits."

If I read this correctly, it sounds like the deferred payments come out of the players' 50% share of HRR in those future years. So in reality, the NHL isn't paying the full value of those contracts, the players are paying for their current contracts by reducing the pool for their future contracts. It will really be a wash though since revenue will likely continue to increase but the players won't like that one bit.
Ya I touched on that earlier. It seems kind of bogus to me and I'm not nearly as smart as Fehr so...

This is basically a rollback with lipstick on it. Ie the owners are protected if revenue doesn't increase, but the players full value contracts aren't.

Unless I'm missing something in the language...

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:25 PM
  #270
Alesle
Registered User
 
Alesle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Ya I touched on that earlier. It seems kind of bogus to me and I'm not nearly as smart as Fehr so...

This is basically a rollback with lipstick on it. Ie the owners are protected if revenue doesn't increase, but the players full value contracts aren't.

Unless I'm missing something in the language...
I get the feeling the owners are playing off the NHLPA’s offer with "reduced" fixed salary growth if the league experienced a growth of 7 % or more a year, and basically turning it against them. They are more or less saying "if the game grows 5 % or more a year (which is 2 percentage points lower than your estimation, hence very conservative), you're going to get paid the full value of your contract”. The only possible way the NHLPA can argue they’re not getting the full value of their signed contracts is if they admit the premises for their original offer to the league, of a 7 % growth, was overly optimistic.

What this offer does is to use future growth of the league to "guarantee” the players contract. If the league growth matches the 5 % the league suggests, the net effect for the players is that they will see no salary growth for two years (and a somewhat lower net present value of their contract).

All in all I think it’s a very clever worded proposal from the league, and it will be very difficult for the NHLPA to not look like “the bad guys”.

Alesle is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:42 PM
  #271
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
I hate when Fehr throws out the last CBA and what the difference will be using the old CBA and potential new ones. It's frickin' irritating.

The last CBA didn't work, even after you made concessions and made boat loads of money that you probably shouldn't have.

SidTheKid8787 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:56 PM
  #272
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
If the last CBA didn't work and 80% of the terms were the owners' ideas / in favor of the owners, then isn't that just another form of mismanagement? Any way you cut it the players gave up a lot last time and there are record revenues now yet we still have problems? Sorry but the owners should eat their own dog food this time.

At some point the owners should pay for their own mistakes (some of whom gamed the system right up to the deadline after crying foul -- the ones in trouble pretty much dig themselves into a hole). The players are the more valued commodity here. There are other places for them to go an make millions and potentially other owners to start something new with the good players. But the NHL has no prayer of replacing the players.

If they put an AHL quality product out there / tried that, it would be the end of the NHL. I sure as hell wouldn't watch / wouldn't pay for a collection of rookies + AHL type players. Life's too short. I'm either watching the very best the game has to offer or I'm not watching. That said hopefully the players take LeBrun's advice and use this proposal as the framework for a counter-offer instead of making another new proposal like they did the last time (which was almost as bad as the owners' first proposal).

Darth Vitale is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:15 PM
  #273
SidTheKid8787
Registered User
 
SidTheKid8787's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
If the last CBA didn't work and 80% of the terms were the owners' ideas / in favor of the owners, then isn't that just another form of mismanagement? Any way you cut it the players gave up a lot last time and there are record revenues now yet we still have problems? Sorry but the owners should eat their own dog food this time.
Oh, the last CBA worked great...
for the players.
Ask the owners and the players if they'd take the old CBA right now, as is.
Hell the players were willing to play under it, things were going so great for them.

The owners screwed up, you're right but they are trying to fix it, whereas the players just want to keep the money train rollin'.

SidTheKid8787 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:35 PM
  #274
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
 
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 15,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alesle View Post
I get the feeling the owners are playing off the NHLPA’s offer with "reduced" fixed salary growth if the league experienced a growth of 7 % or more a year, and basically turning it against them. They are more or less saying "if the game grows 5 % or more a year (which is 2 percentage points lower than your estimation, hence very conservative), you're going to get paid the full value of your contract”. The only possible way the NHLPA can argue they’re not getting the full value of their signed contracts is if they admit the premises for their original offer to the league, of a 7 % growth, was overly optimistic.

What this offer does is to use future growth of the league to "guarantee” the players contract. If the league growth matches the 5 % the league suggests, the net effect for the players is that they will see no salary growth for two years (and a somewhat lower net present value of their contract).

All in all I think it’s a very clever worded proposal from the league, and it will be very difficult for the NHLPA to not look like “the bad guys”.
I was neutral on this situation a couple of yrs ago, even though I knew this **** was coming. All I've researched over that time tells me the owners are the greedy ones and Bettman knows he can force the PAs hand in the end.

This isn't about the owners losing money, because I am more than sure only a few teams are hurting. It is about Bettman and the owners seeing what happened in the NFL and NBA. Now they want the same thing and Bettman knows he can only get it through a lockout.

The league basically dressed up a rollback and it is essentially a raw deal for the players. The owners aren't making any concessions, period.

However, the players have to realize they can come out ahead in the long run if they are smart. They can start by taking as small a slice of the **** pie the owners are forcing on them by getting some pushbacks.

It's important they realize they have to get the 82 game schedule in to max out revenue and protect their current deals. Within a couple of yrs their cut will essentially be the same as it is now and grow from there.

If they don't do this deal (with tweaks, obviously) they are going to end up losing way more than if they didn't accept it.

I kept saying common sense has to prevail and they still have a chance to show us that. Don't worry about getting back at the little troll.. Protect the game and do what's right.

Mr Jiggyfly is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:38 PM
  #275
Darth Vitale
Moderator
Transitional Period
 
Darth Vitale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Victoryville
Country: United States
Posts: 25,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidTheKid8787 View Post
The owners screwed up, you're right but they are trying to fix it, whereas the players just want to keep the money train rollin'.
The point is they BOTH have a money train going and the only rationale the owners have for changing anything is to keep a few of the weak teams afloat, which are not hurting because player salaries are high but because they're in lousy markets and mismanaged.

Hopefully their definition of HRR isn't too skewed in this new 50/50 proposal so we can at least get some progress in terms of having a real "foundation" for further negotiations. Until yesterday (maybe still), we had none.

Darth Vitale 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 06:14 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.