today was a normal game day in germany. my hometown team got jamie benn on the roster for the lockout, he was a healthy scratch. briere and giroux are playing for berlin atm, same thing there, healthy scratches... could be a sign...
Well you are right about the Oilers having Yakupov for one more year of ELC, the changes to contracts actually do not necessarily favor the Oilers.
Think about it. A rookie signs a 2 year ELC, needs to play 8 years to hit UFA status. So he needs a six year deal to push him there after his ELC, only contracts are capped at 5 years with very limited loading (only 5% increments year-over-year is permitted under the current proposal).
In reality, the Oilers will likely have to pay Yakupov millions more and push him to free agency BECAUSE he's on a 3 year ELC. More bargaining power.
I see what you're saying, but unless they completely change the compensation for signing another team's RFA, I doubt most teams are going to be willing to give up 4 1st round picks and a large amount of cap space to a player that they can only sign for 5 years.
I just see it that the Oilers won't have to throw in that extra .25-.5 million to purchase the player's extra UFA year.
Really torn on what moving UFA to one year older does.
On the bigger UFA's who cause much of the problems, the older the player is the worse the contract becomes. Granted contracts are probably looking at being a max of 5-7 years in the new CBA, how often in the past has a deal looked brutal in year 1 or 2 of a UFA signing?
I just see future UFA signings being cap problems earlier and what is going to be the fix then?
I guess for us it's a good thing as it will give us an extra year of our young kids.
Very smart. Everyone (players, fans, media, owners, etc.) can all read it and not have to rely on media filters or spokespeople to try and grasp what's being proposed.
Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.
No more bonus to Steve Staios for the isles winning the cup.
• Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.
• NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.
Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.
No more bonus to Steve Staios for the isles winning the cup.
• Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.
• NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.
Don't mind this either.
I like the 4 year thing for Europeans, would that apply to any previously drafted players that are not yet signed or only for the 2013 draft onwards?
Looks like the PA is playing major hardball. Bye bye season. If the PA continues to sit around and give nothing, I hope the owners tell them to pound sand.
Looks like the PA is playing major hardball. Bye bye season. If the PA continues to sit around and give nothing, I hope the owners tell them to pound sand.
During this ordeal I have been somewhat on the players side, even if they are acting spoiled. I thought that the NHL's first offer was god awful and that they really didn't need to lock the players out a few months after screaming to anyone that would listen about how much revenue they made last year.
But after reading Fehr's letter to the players I am starting to just hate them all. The owners are greedy *******s eager to play with fan emotion to squeeze blood from a stone. And the players are still stuck in a "well we lost last time, why should we lose again?" mentality that doesn't take into account the struggles of some of the lower revenue teams or how well they have done since "losing" the last negotiation.
It seems like the Luntz propaganda is working a bit. But it isn't making the NHL look good. Just slightly less ****** than the PA. If they can't make something based on this offer work for both sides then to hell with them all.
My plan is still to not buy tickets for 2 games for each Oiler game missed. So if they miss 20 games, I will wait until the 41st time I feel like paying the astronomical prices we do. Since I usually go to 6-7 games a year, that would be around 6-7 seasons before the NHL sees my money again. And if they lose the full season, well, my math puts that at around 27 years. That would be a good chunk of the rest of my life. And no merchandise bought until I start going to games again.
So if both these groups want to keep playing chicken and alienating the fans that actually pay the bills, good on them. I hope they all go bankrupt.
I love hyow he keeps emphasizing that players made great concessions last CBA. Yeah players that are now retired took a hit to make today's babies even richer than the past CBA.
Seriously this tweet from Lupul makes me shake my head:
Joffrey Lupul @JLupul Wait I thought negotiating publicly is unfair to the process? Why should I be surprised..
You know what Joff, life is unfair you know like a busines having to commit 57% of it's revenues to it's employees. Not 57% of profits but 57% of revenues.
Also speaking of unfair Joff every Oiler fan still feels ripped off from your one season here, so ****!
During this ordeal I have been somewhat on the players side, even if they are acting spoiled. I thought that the NHL's first offer was god awful and that they really didn't need to lock the players out a few months after screaming to anyone that would listen about how much revenue they made last year.
This is the argument I don't get from the peoples side who are with the players. Revenue means **** all if the bottom line is 5%. Some teams bottom line is a lot worse than that.
The players whined earlier about how they want to find a deal that doesn't make the richer teams richer and to actually help the poorer teams so they proposed salary trading in trades. The league looked at that and added it to their new proposal while also including that the top 10 teams in revenues contribute 50% of the pot.
Really all I'm getting at is that revenue and profit and two totally different things and I don't think some people are making the differentiation I think they are just seeing large revenue numbers.
Everything Fehr says makes me want to kick a puppy. He can twist anything to make it sound like the "poor" players are getting screwed.
There's a quote on Tsn with Fehr asking "what do the owners offer?"..how about a JOB?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toydarian
"not quite as Draconian" F off Fehr!
My exact reactions.
How is it that Fehr, and the NHLPA don't seem to realize they are locked out indefinitely. Without jobs. By a league that set precedent for this as little as 7yrs ago with the same people in charge.
The NHLPA talking points are about maintaining revenue share status quo. Which given the circumstance is a deluded expectation. i.e., clearly you're not getting that much, its why there is a lockout.
My own take is I'm surprised the NHL has moved this quickly to try to get a deal done. I think this one might be a slight error. Its quite obvious the NHL chose the first numbers they did so that a middle point in negotiation would arrive at 50-50. They've quickly gone there and are now offering what they wanted as a settling price. But now to get a deal done it seems likely they'll end up giving up more. Or alternately bidding a longterm **** off.
This is the argument I don't get from the peoples side who are with the players. Revenue means **** all if the bottom line is 5%. Some teams bottom line is a lot worse than that.
The players whined earlier about how they want to find a deal that doesn't make the richer teams richer and to actually help the poorer teams so they proposed salary trading in trades. The league looked at that and added it to their new proposal while also including that the top 10 teams in revenues contribute 50% of the pot.
Really all I'm getting at is that revenue and profit and two totally different things and I don't think some people are making the differentiation I think they are just seeing large revenue numbers.
I get that revenue and profit are different. But when revenue almost doubles over a 7 year span, how could the profits drop given that the players chunk was a fixed %? What other secret expenses snuck up on the owners to negate all that revenue gain? Is all the profit going to a couple of teams while everyone else struggles? If so then revenue sharing is a better solution than clawing back money from the players from agreements the teams made.
Revenues grew from around 1.8B to 3.3B over the last CBA. So the revenue split started at 1.026B for the players and 0.774B for the owners. Last season it was, 1.881B for the players and 1.419B for the owners. So if the owners take has nearly double over the CBA, how are they now crying poor? Were they losing money hand over fist at the start and just a little bit now? Have other expenses skyrocketed in some way that is the players fault?
If they really are losing money as bad as they say, they could prove it by opening up their books. And that option never seems to be on the table. Also, if revenue is as meaningless as you suggest, why does the NHL crow about those numbers every summer?
All that being said, as the rest of my post stated, **** both these groups if they can't get this deal to work.
I get that revenue and profit are different. But when revenue almost doubles over a 7 year span, how could the profits drop given that the players chunk was a fixed %? What other secret expenses snuck up on the owners to negate all that revenue gain? Is all the profit going to a couple of teams while everyone else struggles? If so then revenue sharing is a better solution than clawing back money from the players from agreements the teams made.
Revenues grew from around 1.8B to 3.3B over the last CBA. So the revenue split started at 1.026B for the players and 0.774B for the owners. Last season it was, 1.881B for the players and 1.419B for the owners. So if the owners take has nearly double over the CBA, how are they now crying poor? Were they losing money hand over fist at the start and just a little bit now? Have other expenses skyrocketed in some way that is the players fault?
If they really are losing money as bad as they say, they could prove it by opening up their books. And that option never seems to be on the table. Also, if revenue is as meaningless as you suggest, why does the NHL crow about those numbers every summer?
All that being said, as the rest of my post stated, **** both these groups if they can't get this deal to work.
I thought the NHL handed over 70000 pages of team financials to the PA? I don't think they are closed books.
I thought the NHL handed over 70000 pages of team financials to the PA? I don't think they are closed books.
Apart from the league, who knows what they decided to put in and leave out of those pages? The owners have a history of crying poor come CBA negotiation time, and rich every summer when looking for TV deals and new sponsors. Which is true?
Apart from the league, who knows what they decided to put in and leave out of those pages? The owners have a history of crying poor come CBA negotiation time, and rich every summer when looking for TV deals and new sponsors. Which is true?
They can't though, if they do I'm sure the PA would be suing for tens of millions if not hundreds of millions.
<-- Credit goes to The Nemesis.
