HFBoards

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

Lockout discussion thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 11:52 AM
  #701
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 588
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hullois View Post
Ok got the answer now:

We are proposing that the salaries of minor league Players on NHL contracts (above a threshold of $105,000) be counted against a Club's Cap. This provision is intended to prevent Clubs from "stashing" or assigning players to the minors (or any other professional league) for "Cap management" purposes. We are not proposing that any salary paid to minor league Players on NHL contracts be counted against the Players' Share.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643572
What constitutes "a minor league Player on NHL contract?" If Yannick Weber gets assigned to the AHL does his $900,000 count against the cap? What if he is assigned there for one month? Injury assignment? How about Louis Leblanc? His minor league salary is $67,500, but he has a $90,000 signing bonus coming to him this year, which would put him over the $105,000 - does that count?

I'm sure there are a million examples one could use. Clarification needed indeed.

JohnnyReb is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:55 AM
  #702
Hullois
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Québec
Country: Martinique
Posts: 1,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
What constitutes "a minor league Player on NHL contract?" If Yannick Weber gets assigned to the AHL does his $900,000 count against the cap? What if he is assigned there for one month? Injury assignment? How about Louis Leblanc? His minor league salary is $67,500, but he has a $90,000 signing bonus coming to him this year, which would put him over the $105,000 - does that count?

I'm sure there are a million examples one could use. Clarification needed indeed.
I think this applies to players with one-way contract that are sent down (or go to Europe ala Huet). Leblanc's got a two-way contract, so while in the AHL his salary wouldn't count against the cap.

Hullois is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:02 PM
  #703
Et le But
Moderator
 
Et le But's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: Argentina
Posts: 17,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Louis Jean ‏@LouisJean_TVA

Told by player that was on #NHLPA conf call last night that if the #NHL offer had come in June, it would have been "rejected outright".
The NHLPA got their egos hurt by the NHL making this public, hate to say it but NHL in November is still a pipe dream.

Et le But is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:22 PM
  #704
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Et le But View Post
The NHLPA got their egos hurt by the NHL making this public, hate to say it but NHL in November is still a pipe dream.
The PA didn't even have their act together in June to reject an offer.

Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:23 PM
  #705
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusfring View Post
People actually think the players are going to accept this deal?

No chance.
Clearly, they have not become more intelligent since 2004...

This offer they have now on the table is only because the owner are trying to salvage the 82 games season.

Last time, they lost 1 full year of salaries to eventually accept what they didn't wanted (Cap AND a roll back).

Now, if they try to play hard line, they will eventually lose part or another whole season to accept less than what is on the table now. And with another possible lost season in the cards, the futur HRR will probably go down lowering even more their share of the pie.

The players will never get more than what the owners are willing to give. Are they willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to see if they can get more than the proposed 50/50 they are being offered now?

We will have some hockey to watch on November 2nd. The players can't be that stupid. Or are they?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:28 PM
  #706
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
Clearly, they have not become more intelligent since 2004...

This offer they have now on the table is only because the owner are trying to salvage the 82 games season.

Last time, they lost 1 full year of salaries to eventually accept what they didn't wanted (Cap AND a roll back).

Now, if they try to play hard line, they will eventually lose part or another whole season to accept less than what is on the table now. And with another possible lost season in the cards, the futur HRR will probably go down lowering even more their share of the pie.

The players will never get more than what the owners are willing to give. Are they willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to see if they can get more than the proposed 50/50 they are being offered now?

We will have some hockey to watch on November 2nd. The players can't be that stupid. Or are they?
Even though, the revenue sharing percentages is one the most important parts in the CBA agreement, I think that the deal is still basic, and the NHLPA isn't looking for more than 50% percent, but just to ensure that they don't lose a lot money some other way.

Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
  #707
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myron Gaines View Post
Even though, the revenue sharing percentages is one the most important parts in the CBA agreement, I think that the deal is still basic, and the NHLPA isn't looking for more than 50% percent, but just to ensure that they don't lose a lot money some other way.
And they are willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to do so?

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:37 PM
  #708
Myron Gaines*
Trop Giou
 
Myron Gaines*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
And they are willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to do so?
Why don't you ask one of them?

Myron Gaines* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:39 PM
  #709
Jean_Jacket41
Neely = HOF
 
Jean_Jacket41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: With the smurfs
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myron Gaines View Post
Why don't you ask one of them?
Do they think that losing 100% of their salaries this year is an option to see if they can get more than what is on the table now to play the next 6-7 seasons at 50%?

We'll get their answer in the next few days.

Jean_Jacket41 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:58 PM
  #710
optimus2861
Registered User
 
optimus2861's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bedford NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
Clearly, they have not become more intelligent since 2004...

This offer they have now on the table is only because the owner are trying to salvage the 82 games season.

Last time, they lost 1 full year of salaries to eventually accept what they didn't wanted (Cap AND a roll back).

Now, if they try to play hard line, they will eventually lose part or another whole season to accept less than what is on the table now. And with another possible lost season in the cards, the futur HRR will probably go down lowering even more their share of the pie.

The players will never get more than what the owners are willing to give. Are they willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to see if they can get more than the proposed 50/50 they are being offered now?

We will have some hockey to watch on November 2nd. The players can't be that stupid. Or are they?
100% agreed. The players simply don't have the leverage to take this any farther. The NHL has put the best offer on the table that they can to preserve an 82 game season and most of the $3.3 billion HRR pie. The PA has to recognize this, come to the table with a solid but reasonable counter-proposal, wring a couple concessions out of the league (you can even see the 'low-hanging fruit' in the NHL's offer, such as the 8/28 UFA; I bet they'd go right back to 7/27 pretty easy), and sign. If the PA tries to play hardball, the season starts to shorten, and the league's offers only get worse.

I used this analogy on the main board: this is the Arafat-Clinton moment. Is it the perfect deal? No. It was never going to be. It's still the best deal you can get. Take it, or things will go to ****. Arafat didn't take the deal, and things went to ****. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself.

optimus2861 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:02 PM
  #711
ScottFC
Registered User
 
ScottFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: чуд
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,098
vCash: 500
I've been on the side of the Players for most of this because I don't feel like salary roll-backs are fair but I don't see any reason as to why they should get more than 50% of profits. Yes the players are the 1's we pay to watch but if there was no NHL for the last 100 years then the sport of hockey might be as unpopular as some Olympic sports. Those athletes put in as much hard work as these hockey players and they rarely make anything more then the average worker to do it.

ScottFC is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:22 PM
  #712
Analyzer
#WeAreBoston
 
Analyzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Renfrew, ON.
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post

We will have some hockey to watch on November 2nd. The players can't be that stupid. Or are they?
Donald Fehr is.

Analyzer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:10 PM
  #713
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Donald Fehr is.
Only as stupid as the players.

PunkinDrublic* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:17 PM
  #714
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyzer View Post
Donald Fehr is.
Fehr is clearly one smart arsehole who excels at ripping off owners. He just brainwashed the players again with his last email to the players and agents.

I don't think the owners will offer a significantly better deal and would rather wait out the whole year to get Fehr fired.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:33 PM
  #715
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsrock76 View Post
I just read there is no Amnesty Buyout in the proposal, depending on future negotiations it appears at this point we are stuck with Gomer.
It's called a compliance buyout, and omission doesn't mean there won't be one. You do realize a CBA is 150+ pages long and what we got is a very short resume.

The reason I doubt you've read there won't be any compliance buyouts is because you wouldn't be calling it like that (how CP named it). What you should say is that you have not read anywhere that there will be one.

The reason its called a "compliance" buyout, is so team can "comply" to the new terms and % of the cap. If the cap changes, chances are there will be compliance buyouts, especially if there's no rollbacks.

From what I've read teams will have one year to maintain the previous cap limit of 70 million, and then they won't be protected. It would be highly unwise to not permit this to teams, especially if they can't bury contracts.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:12 PM
  #716
DekeLikeYouMeanIt
Ohhhh you mad
 
DekeLikeYouMeanIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In space..with goats
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,314
vCash: 500
And now they're nitpicking that the NHL released the offer to the public. Seriously **** off.

DekeLikeYouMeanIt is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:19 PM
  #717
overlords
Hfboards
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Trolling Brian Wilde
Posts: 26,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DekeLikeYouMeanIt View Post
And now they're nitpicking that the NHL released the offer to the public. Seriously **** off.
Seeing all the players chime in is like seeing all the Fox News anchors all using the same buzz words. Creepy and see-through.

overlords is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:23 PM
  #718
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 500
The players put on a good public face, they are all united behind Donald Fehr but it seems that every one of them is spouting the same rhetoric that comes out of Fehr's mouth. There is no independent, critical thinking going on within the NHLPA. They take what Fehr says as gospel, regurgitate it and feed it back the media.

If this proposal is not agreed to in principle, the players need to examine their own individual situation to determine whether or not this impasse will be of any benefit to them or if it will impact them in a negative manner in the long run.

While it is fine to keep quoting the high profile players with long term contracts, the guy who has only one or two years left on his current deal may be sacrificing a lot more than 25%. His career might be in jeopardy. I would argue that these players make up a significant proportion of the membership and are not being served well by the stance the NHLPA is taking.

At the same time, Fehr continually bemoans the fact the players relinquished a great deal in the last deal when that is not the case at all. There was some short term pain but the players received and ever increasing portion of an ever increasing pie. They should thank Ted Saskin.

Within every business environment, when the economics get out of hand an adjustment needs to be made. We can all remember the auto workers striking for increasing pay and benefits because they deserved a greater share. Plants were closed, companies went bankrupt and the industry looks far different today than it did fifteen years ago. The players expectations could do the same to the NHL. By demandind a disproportionate piece of the pie, the long term viability of the league becomes questionable.

If these negotiations hit rock bottom the entire structure comes into question and both the league owners and players will pay a steep price.

HCH is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:48 PM
  #719
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
The players put on a good public face, they are all united behind Donald Fehr but it seems that every one of them is spouting the same rhetoric that comes out of Fehr's mouth. There is no independent, critical thinking going on within the NHLPA. They take what Fehr says as gospel, regurgitate it and feed it back the media.

If this proposal is not agreed to in principle, the players need to examine their own individual situation to determine whether or not this impasse will be of any benefit to them or if it will impact them in a negative manner in the long run.

While it is fine to keep quoting the high profile players with long term contracts, the guy who has only one or two years left on his current deal may be sacrificing a lot more than 25%. His career might be in jeopardy. I would argue that these players make up a significant proportion of the membership and are not being served well by the stance the NHLPA is taking.

At the same time, Fehr continually bemoans the fact the players relinquished a great deal in the last deal when that is not the case at all. There was some short term pain but the players received and ever increasing portion of an ever increasing pie. They should thank Ted Saskin.

Within every business environment, when the economics get out of hand an adjustment needs to be made. We can all remember the auto workers striking for increasing pay and benefits because they deserved a greater share. Plants were closed, companies went bankrupt and the industry looks far different today than it did fifteen years ago. The players expectations could do the same to the NHL. By demandind a disproportionate piece of the pie, the long term viability of the league becomes questionable.

If these negotiations hit rock bottom the entire structure comes into question and both the league owners and players will pay a steep price.

Wow, you don't know what you're talking about. First off, the terms they lived through throughout the CBA are based on the CBA, so Saskin has nothing to do with the increase in % the players got over the years, that was already agreed upon.

Secondly and most importantly, the players relinquished over 4 billion in revenue by taking the 24% cut, that's what it amounts to once the CBA ended on Sept 15th. So no matter if they are right back to the total $ they made this last season compared to 03-04, the latter years did not, between 05-10. If the players would've remained at 79% of total revenues or even somewhat lower than that, we're talking about 3-4 billion the owners would not have taken, which would've went directly to the players. In fact, it comes close to 1 million $ per player per season for over 7 years, that they have conceded. If you consider that a small concession, I think you might need to get your head checked.

You're biased against Ferh, I don't like him, as much as I don't like Bettman, but he is quite right about that fact.

No matter with what side you agree with, don't make-up lame arguments that don't hold any shred of logic.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:32 PM
  #720
sheed36
Registered User
 
sheed36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,959
vCash: 500
At this point I could care less if this drags on for the next 3-4 years.. We'll see how solidified the PA is the longer this drags on. The thought of losing millions in salary which they will never recover will eventually cause tensions amongst the "brotherhood" if it already hasn't. Just wake me up when it's over.

sheed36 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:33 PM
  #721
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
Wow, you don't know what you're talking about. First off, the terms they lived through throughout the CBA are based on the CBA, so Saskin has nothing to do with the increase in % the players got over the years, that was already agreed upon. Secondly and most importantly, the players relinquished over 4 billion in revenue by taking the 24% cut, that's what it amounts to once the CBA ended on Sept 15th. So no matter if they are right back to the total $ they made this last season compared to 03-04, the latter years did not, between 05-10. If the players would've remained at 79% of total revenues or even somewhat lower than that, we're talking about 3-4 billion the owners would not have taken, which would've went directly to the players. In fact, it comes close to 1 million $ per player per season for over 7 years, that they have conceded. If you consider that a small concession, I think you might need to get your head checked.

You're biased against Ferh, I don't like him, as much as I don't like Bettman, but he is quite right about that fact.

No matter with what side you agree with, don't make-up lame arguments that don't hold any shred of logic.
You have no idea if the players salaries would have continued to escalate if the old CBA had remained in place. It's true that they did sacrifice in the short term but you don't know if the percentages paid out to the players would have remained at the level or not, so quit pretending you do.

So the players are making less now than they did in the past? I guess I overlooked that part. You are judging the last CBA only on the effects of the first season rather than on how it unfolded over the course of time.

Personally, I don't like either Bettman or Fehr but the players need to keep their eyes open for their own good when they are following Fehr. It could cost some of them a lot of money, if not their careers regardless of whether it is the players or owners who stand on the moral high ground.

I am not sure if it wise to kick sand in the face of those that sign their paycheques. All I am saying is that they need to make their choices carefully.

HCH is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:00 PM
  #722
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HCH View Post
You have no idea if the players salaries would have continued to escalate if the old CBA had remained in place. It's true that they did sacrifice in the short term but you don't know if the percentages paid out to the players would have remained at the level or not, so quit pretending you do.

So the players are making less now than they did in the past? I guess I overlooked that part. You are judging the last CBA only on the effects of the first season rather than on how it unfolded over the course of time.

Personally, I don't like either Bettman or Fehr but the players need to keep their eyes open for their own good when they are following Fehr. It could cost some of them a lot of money, if not their careers regardless of whether it is the players or owners who stand on the moral high ground.

I am not sure if it wise to kick sand in the face of those that sign their paycheques. All I am saying is that they need to make their choices carefully.
You're kidding right? You should be a comedian. I foresee much success for you in this venture.

Listen, buddy, on the initial season it amounted to 400 million in concession, spread at over 7 seasons and you're already at 2,8 billion if the revenues didn't got up, and also, you dismiss what I said about what the owners gained, because it is the 4 billion I mentioned, no way of disregarding that, it is what the 24% represents.

Your argument made ZERO sense, and was based on your lack of logic, and nothing else.

It was a huge concession on the player's behalf, and Fehr is right about that, deal with it.

As for the bolded, you might wanna put on your reading glasses, because the 4 billion represents all 7 years, I did the total opposite of what you said I said.

Instead of getting all freaked out, relax, take a deep breath and realize your mistake. You'll learn something this way.

Ozymandias is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:39 PM
  #723
Roulin
Registered User
 
Roulin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,242
vCash: 500
Does anyone have more details about how this would work?

"Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million)."

Roulin is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:26 PM
  #724
CN_paladin
Registered User
 
CN_paladin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westeros
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
Clearly, they have not become more intelligent since 2004...

This offer they have now on the table is only because the owner are trying to salvage the 82 games season.

Last time, they lost 1 full year of salaries to eventually accept what they didn't wanted (Cap AND a roll back).

Now, if they try to play hard line, they will eventually lose part or another whole season to accept less than what is on the table now. And with another possible lost season in the cards, the futur HRR will probably go down lowering even more their share of the pie.

The players will never get more than what the owners are willing to give. Are they willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to see if they can get more than the proposed 50/50 they are being offered now?

We will have some hockey to watch on November 2nd. The players can't be that stupid. Or are they?
Most of them aren't smarter than high school drop-outs due to time they've spent training and playing instead of actually studying. We all know that obtaining a HS diploma in Canada is such a piece of cake so I am rather pessimistic. The players don't want make a cent less than what they made last year but losing more games will make the 82 game season less probable by the day. The more games they lose the more likely they make less than what they did last year.

CN_paladin is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:37 PM
  #725
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean_Jacket41 View Post
And they are willing to lose 100% of their salaries this year to do so?
Not the brightest crowd are they? They learned absolutely nothing from the last lockout, that say their avg salary go up almost 1.0M per player...

Lose an entire year for solidarity, and then have to give in? Just fire Fehr now boys...

BLONG7 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 11:48 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.