HFBoards

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

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-20-2012, 07:39 AM
  #126
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,890
vCash: 500
Quote:
QMI: Did Gary Bettman tell you the last offer Tuesday was take-it-or-leave-it?

FEHR: "All I can tell you is that my sense in the meeting (Thursday): They reviewed our proposals. It took them 12 or 15 minutes, said they rejected them, said their offer on Tuesday was their very best offer and that outside of what he called 'minor tweaks' that was it. He said this in front of 19 players. When I said, 'So, a tweak means something small and insubstantial' or words to that effect, he said 'Yes.' That's sort of the way it ends. Except Gary said at the end of the meeting if the players were prepared to accept their offer in its entirety, minor tweaks, I could call him about the 'make whole' provision which has players paying players for the reduced salaries in the first two years. I just have to go on the basis of what I heard."
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/19...labour-dispute

Bettman said on September 13 the NHL had made their offer and the PA had until the 15th to accept it. If they didn't accept it,the offers would get worse. Stern said the same thing last fall. Things were not looking good. All of a sudden,the owners and PA met on Black Friday and a CBA was hammered out after a marathon negotiating session. The NHL's offer improved.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 10:33 AM
  #127
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
I really hate this "take it or leave it" BS

Riche16 is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:29 AM
  #128
silverfish
KEVIN!
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 15,977
vCash: 500
Was this posted yet?

Don Fehr's letter to the players...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players

A great rundown of all three of the PAs proposals.

silverfish is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:50 AM
  #129
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
Proposal 3: 50% split is an immediate 13% reduction. 13% of salaries is exempt of escrow. This part is guaranteed. The remaining 87% is subject to the 50% calculation of revenues.

Creative and fair. Players ask for 13% in escrow exempt salary.

So who is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise again?

DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:50 AM
  #130
Fire Sather
new Niclas Wallin?
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 20,338
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Was this posted yet?

Don Fehr's letter to the players...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players

A great rundown of all three of the PAs proposals.
They are right there. Getting to 50% by Year 3. Current salaries are the only holdup. It would be downright silly to not get a deal done in time to play 82 games. Once games are missed, the very salary they are fighting for is missed. If they already are agreed on 50-50 for the end of the CBA, it makes no sense to not work something out to get the very money the players are fighting over.

Fire Sather is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 11:51 AM
  #131
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
In all fairness, Bettman couldn't be expected to learn that in 10 minutes before rejecting the offer and walking out of the meeting.

DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:16 PM
  #132
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
If it were that simple, why was Fehr's response "We haven't run those # as of yet"?

Riche16 is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:29 PM
  #133
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Proposal 3: 50% split is an immediate 13% reduction. 13% of salaries is exempt of escrow. This part is guaranteed. The remaining 87% is subject to the 50% calculation of revenues.

Creative and fair. Players ask for 13% in escrow exempt salary.

So who is unreasonable and unwilling to compromise again?
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.

The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:30 PM
  #134
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
Maybe #s is the exact dollar amount?

DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:46 PM
  #135
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.

The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).
The NHL already offered teams allowing to go 13% over the cap in year one. The union is just saying "great, lets not charge escrow on that overage." If its a transition, then it kinda makes sense.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 12:53 PM
  #136
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
The NHL already offered teams allowing to go 13% over the cap in year one. The union is just saying "great, lets not charge escrow on that overage." If its a transition, then it kinda makes sense.
There's a dramatic difference between up to 13% over in the first year with escrow and up to 13% until the last remaining current deal expires and without escrow.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 01:10 PM
  #137
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,546
vCash: 500
There are lots of ways to meet in the middle, but the union has to get over this idea that every penny of every current contract gets paid on time and without escrow regardless of how much HRR grows. (Hell, they didn't even have that under the old deal!)

Fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage of growth beginning from the current base are non-starters. The PA needs to move towards the owners with a deal that meets them in the middle. Plenty of options:

- The old system, but with gradually declining splits
- Make-whole paid back over time exceeding the cap by a fixed % until such time as all deals are "back on schedule" under the cap
- Capped escrow
- The PA's "proposal 3", but at something like 7% as opposed to 13%


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-20-2012 at 01:16 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 01:13 PM
  #138
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
There's a dramatic difference between up to 13% over in the first year with escrow and up to 13% until the last remaining current deal expires and without escrow.
I'm not sure that's what it said, but I admittedly haven't read it yet since I'm on my phone.

By the time they get to year 3, at the latest, they shouldn't need the escrow free portion of their salaries anymore, provided they hit the 5% growth projections.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 01:26 PM
  #139
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
I'm pretty sure it's 13% of contracts cannot be reduced by escrow. I don't take it to mean players are asking for 13% of revenues on top of 50/50.

Basically, if you make $100 this season $13 cannot be reduced by escrow reductions. If player share of revenues exceed 50%, $87 can be subject to escrow reductions.

Can someone read the article and confirm my take?

DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 01:33 PM
  #140
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
I'm pretty sure it's 13% of contracts cannot be reduced by escrow. I don't take it to mean players are asking for 13% of revenues on top of 50/50.

Basically, if you make $100 this season $13 cannot be reduced by escrow reductions. If player share of revenues exceed 50%, $87 can be subject to escrow reductions.

Can someone read the article and confirm my take?
DS, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that my interpretation is correct...

Quote:
Option 3: This idea proceeds from an entirely different approach. We take two principles of this negotiation: the owners stated desire to reduce the players share to 50% of HRR, and the Players position that there is no reason to go backwards. This proposal bases that second principle on existing player contracts, not the players’ share. Here is how it works:
• A reduction to 50% from 57% of HRR is a 12.3% cut (that is, 7/57), but the loss in an individual player’s salary would be about 13%. (This is because benefit costs do not fall and these come off the top.)
• The owners honor all existing player contracts. We do this by dividing an existing contract, on a yearly basis, into two separate parts: the 13% and the remaining 87%. The 13% is paid to the player in any event, and it is not counted in the players share and is also off the cap.
• The remaining 87% of existing contracts, plus all new contracts, go into the players’ share (plus all benefits). Thus constructed, the players share will become 50% of HRR, immediately.
• This means that an individual player under an existing contract would receive the 13% segregated, plus a normal payment, subject to escrow, of 87% of his salary. A player with a new contract would have 100% of his salary subject to the 50/50 split. However, since the 13% of existing contracts are off the cap, this should create more cap space, which will be important as the cap will be squeezed.
• Over time, the existing contracts expire, and the share will fall towards 50%. Below is a chart showing the anticipated savings, but these could be greater if there are a significant number of buyouts.
In other words, you can exceed the 50% mark by 13% before escrow kicks in on any current contract. This effectively makes the cap 57% this year (50% x 1.13) and it only declines as NEW contracts get signed that don't have the ability to exceed the 50%. As new contracts begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall number of contracts, you get closer and closer to "true" 50%, but you don't actually get there until the last current contract expires (Shea Weber's deal, in 2026).

Again, they need to move to the middle and give up the idea that they're going to get every penny of every existing contract on time and without escrow regardless of HRR growth.


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-20-2012 at 01:50 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 02:38 PM
  #141
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Hahahaha. Are you kidding?!? 13% in escrow exempt salary translates into "all current contracts can exceed the cap by 13%." This effectively gooses the cap by 13% of each current contract. Not a single dollar gets deferred and the rev split doesn't actually reach 50/50 until Shea Weber's contract expires. So, to sum up, the split under proposal 3 would (again) start at 57/43 and gradually decline year by year until it eventually settles down at 50/50... in 2026.

The solution is either a fixed 54, 52, 51, 50, 50, 50 (or something along those lines) OR a make-whole that defers salary on current deals in excess of the cap, but doesn't eliminate any dollars and doesn't count against the cap, up to a fixed threshold in each year (e.g. 3% over the cap until such time as all the players' contracts fit under it).
Thank you.. saved me the time. Its "superficially" 50/50 but in reality the players share will exceed 50% split until all current deals expire.

I understand what Fehr is trying to accomplish but reality needs to set in, the owners are not going accept anything less than 50% hard split.

in the hall is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 02:39 PM
  #142
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
DS, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but unfortunately it's pretty clear that my interpretation is correct...



In other words, you can exceed the 50% mark by 13% before escrow kicks in on any current contract. This effectively makes the cap 57% this year (50% x 1.13) and it only declines as NEW contracts get signed that don't have the ability to exceed the 50%. As new contracts begin to make up a larger percentage of the overall number of contracts, you get closer and closer to "true" 50%, but you don't actually get there until the last current contract expires (Shea Weber's deal, in 2026).

Again, they need to move to the middle and give up the idea that they're going to get every penny of every existing contract on time and without escrow regardless of HRR growth.
Yeah, i was thinking all counted to the 50% but 13% of salary was guaranteed. 2/3 of contacts expire in 2 seasons. Not the best or worst scenario. Capping escrow is the best route.

DutchShamrock is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 02:43 PM
  #143
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,177
vCash: 500
BRF, the NHL should just offer to lop off 13% of HRR before calculating the players share and thereby exploding the escrow payment on the 87% of players salary.

It's a reasonable concept and proposal if it was done the way I was thinking before I read the article. Not so much this way.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 02:54 PM
  #144
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Was this posted yet?

Don Fehr's letter to the players...

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ter-to-players

A great rundown of all three of the PAs proposals.
I don't see a single proposal where the players aren't getting more than 50% over the next 5 years. The lowest the players get is 51.5% on any of those proposals. Which sounds "close" until you figure in the added benefit of the first couple years it's all at 54% or 55%.

Fehr states he is "combining" the owners desire to get down to 50% with the players desire to honor all existing contracts.

Yeah.... you eventually get down to 50% just in time to have the CBA expire and we can do this all over again.

If the players want their existing contracts honored, they should take less than 50% in future years to make up for it.

mschmidt64 is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 03:01 PM
  #145
EvilCorporateLawyer
Very slippery slope
 
EvilCorporateLawyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 75,107
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to EvilCorporateLawyer
Oh, they should take less than 50% now in the future? Give me a break.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
EvilCorporateLawyer is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 03:36 PM
  #146
NYRFAN218
Mac Truck
 
NYRFAN218's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
First two years should be at 54 and 52 so that the players contracts can be honored fully under the cap. After that they could have year 3 at 50 and years 4 and beyond at 49 that way the average split of the CBA is closer to 50/50. Players get their contracts kept as is and the owners get their 50/50 split.

NYRFAN218 is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 04:42 PM
  #147
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
First two years should be at 54 and 52 so that the players contracts can be honored fully under the cap. After that they could have year 3 at 50 and years 4 and beyond at 49 that way the average split of the CBA is closer to 50/50. Players get their contracts kept as is and the owners get their 50/50 split.
There is 0.00000000000% chance the NHLPA goes anywhere near that.

Riche16 is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:50 PM
  #148
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,787
vCash: 500
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?

jniklast is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:54 PM
  #149
Riche16
McCready guitar god
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,698
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?
The "make whole" is BS. The players get their full contract paid by themselves... That's the issue. They get paid the next two years by their future selves. Overall still lose that money.

Riche16 is online now  
Old
10-20-2012, 05:58 PM
  #150
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jniklast View Post
So what exactly is the PA's problem with that "make whole" clause? The players get all their money, don't they? Is the fact they don't get all their money "on time" the big problem?
The problem with the make whole clause is that the amount that the players get paid out of the fund counts against their part of the revenue stream. So, the players are funding their own salaries instead of it coming out of the owners share.

Brooklyn Ranger 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 03:31 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.