HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Calgary Flames
Notices

NHL vs. NHLPA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2012, 07:23 PM
  #126
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,710
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Public Relations. It looks like the NHLPA is trying very hard when they give the owners 3 options to save the season. Especially when one of them gives the owners a 50/50 split immediately.
Giving the owners 50/50 immediately while keeping existing contracts whole is mathematically impossible. Works out to closer to 54.5% for the players.

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 07:42 PM
  #127
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Public Relations. It looks like the NHLPA is trying very hard when they give the owners 3 options to save the season. Especially when one of them gives the owners a 50/50 split immediately.
It may look like that but the third offer which has the so called '50-50' split the NHLPA didn't run the numbers it is not any better than what we just had it was to make it look like they were willing to give into the owners demand while not. The other 2 are both extremely unrealistic as the owners are looking to save money now like what the NBA owners and the NFL just got but will take around 5 years to average out to close to 50-50.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 07:44 PM
  #128
WhereIsIt
#gift
 
WhereIsIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,809
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Giving the owners 50/50 immediately while keeping existing contracts whole is mathematically impossible. Works out to closer to 54.5% for the players.
I wonder how much it would have been if all the teams didn't sign all those big contracts in the weeks prior to the lockout, hmmmmm.

WhereIsIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 10:53 AM
  #129
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Giving the owners 50/50 immediately while keeping existing contracts whole is mathematically impossible. Works out to closer to 54.5% for the players.
Nobody knows the ins and outs of the proposals. The NHL posted theirs, but the NHLPA is claiming that it wasn't truthful. It's all a song and dance.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 11:54 AM
  #130
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,710
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Nobody knows the ins and outs of the proposals. The NHL posted theirs, but the NHLPA is claiming that it wasn't truthful. It's all a song and dance.
I've never seen anyone call it not truthful. Source?

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 08:52 PM
  #131
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
I've never seen anyone call it not truthful. Source?
Jeez, I've read so many blogs, tweets, and articles I can't remember. I think it might have been a video. Sorry.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 09:43 PM
  #132
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,273
vCash: 50
It is quite pathetic that the NHL rejected all 3 proposals in less than 10 minutes. The PA will usually at least analyze the numbers on proposals from the NHL to understand them. This whole process has been extremely frustrating mostly because of the egos getting in the way efficient negotiation.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 12:23 AM
  #133
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MVW View Post
It is quite pathetic that the NHL rejected all 3 proposals in less than 10 minutes. The PA will usually at least analyze the numbers on proposals from the NHL to understand them. This whole process has been extremely frustrating mostly because of the egos getting in the way efficient negotiation.
How is it pathetic the NHL wants 50-50 this year like the NBA and the NFL and the players have offered 54-46 as their lowest this year. The players offers take a minimum of 5 years to each 50-50 the second they saw that it was rejected. The players offered nothing new then they already offered. The players 3 offers was a PR stunt only 2 made any sense and both took a minimum of 5 years to reach anything near 50-50 under any logical projected revenue growth.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 11:41 AM
  #134
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
How is it pathetic the NHL wants 50-50 this year like the NBA and the NFL and the players have offered 54-46 as their lowest this year. The players offers take a minimum of 5 years to each 50-50 the second they saw that it was rejected. The players offered nothing new then they already offered. The players 3 offers was a PR stunt only 2 made any sense and both took a minimum of 5 years to reach anything near 50-50 under any logical projected revenue growth.
Exactly how much growth did we see since the last lock-out while facing one of the biggest economic recessions in the history of North America? You know the past few years have been analogous to the great depression right?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 12:08 PM
  #135
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Exactly how much growth did we see since the last lock-out while facing one of the biggest economic recessions in the history of North America? You know the past few years have been analogous to the great depression right?
Yes I was using the players projected growth of over 7% a year the league believes it will be closer to 5% per year, so I don't see what your point is. You think both are under projecting?

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 07:49 PM
  #136
Johnny Hoxville
Moderator
Formerly MVW
 
Johnny Hoxville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,273
vCash: 50
@ Glen, that doesn't mean much to me. I see it as the owners are not even taking the time to understand the economics of the players proposals to their core. I think if they at least took a lengthy look at them (whether they were going to reject from the beginning or not) that they would have a better basis as to where they need to meet in the middle to get hockey going again. What they did is basically spit on their offers and create more resentment in what is already a delicate process. The egos on BOTH sides to me are out of control and I've been caring less and less about the NHL by the day.

I'm to the point now where I could give 2 ***** as to who's to blame here. I was simply pointing out that the owners actions where not conducive to get things started again.

Johnny Hoxville is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 07:50 PM
  #137
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Yes I was using the players projected growth of over 7% a year the league believes it will be closer to 5% per year, so I don't see what your point is. You think both are under projecting?
I think that even if we we're back in the mid 2000s (major growth period), the owners would still use a conservative projection. How is it in the interest of the owners to use a realistic or hopeful projection in the context of these offers?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2012, 11:13 PM
  #138
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
I think that even if we we're back in the mid 2000s (major growth period), the owners would still use a conservative projection. How is it in the interest of the owners to use a realistic or hopeful projection in the context of these offers?
I agree the owners are being conservative which throws things off but under the players projections 7%+ neither of the real offers get to 50-50 until at least year 5 that is crazy that they think at best it will take 5 years to get what the NFL and NBA owners got immediately

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 02:34 PM
  #139
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,710
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Jeez, I've read so many blogs, tweets, and articles I can't remember. I think it might have been a video. Sorry.
Nah, that's fine, I'm sure at least one player probably made a tweet about it being a lie... I know I've seen it called "smoke and mirrors", a "public relations proposal only" etc. In any event, the players appear to hate it, because the payback scheme proposed comes out of future players' share of revenue, and if it didn't (it came out of escrow or something) I bet we'd be celebrating hockey starting on November 2.

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 08:55 PM
  #140
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
I agree the owners are being conservative which throws things off but under the players projections 7%+ neither of the real offers get to 50-50 until at least year 5 that is crazy that they think at best it will take 5 years to get what the NFL and NBA owners got immediately
Well if the owners are going to pay the contracts they offered, then the player's are guaranteed more than 50% this year. A soft landing makes sense anyways.

Otherwise all the owner's/GMs that offered contracts this summer was lying. It's like your boss offering you a raise the day before he retires, and then the new boss tells you that it's not happening. It's a kick in the nuts.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-22-2012, 09:02 PM
  #141
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Nah, that's fine, I'm sure at least one player probably made a tweet about it being a lie... I know I've seen it called "smoke and mirrors", a "public relations proposal only" etc. In any event, the players appear to hate it, because the payback scheme proposed comes out of future players' share of revenue, and if it didn't (it came out of escrow or something) I bet we'd be celebrating hockey starting on November 2.
Bettman got a solution to the "core economic issue" he continually *****ed about when the players offered a 50/50 split. Now's he's just nitpicking as to when he gets it. Bloody greed.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:01 AM
  #142
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Well if the owners are going to pay the contracts they offered, then the player's are guaranteed more than 50% this year. A soft landing makes sense anyways.

Otherwise all the owner's/GMs that offered contracts this summer was lying. It's like your boss offering you a raise the day before he retires, and then the new boss tells you that it's not happening. It's a kick in the nuts.
The owners aren't looking for a rollback ( as far as I can tell) so they aren't denying anyone their money the players are guaranteed what they signed, the owners want to lower the cap. The owners also offered this year as a grace period where the cap would be allowed to stay 70 million so teams could trade players / buy them out accordingly but either way the players still get paid (if a player is bout out it will most likely be the Gomez's so they still make a ton of money). The owners offered all of this because they want to honor they contracts they signed with the players whether that is just PR or they do care about their employees is another matter, but as far as I can tell the owners have literally offered the players a 50-50 split with this year as a grace period and no roll back and they players said that wasn't fair. In what world do the players think that is unfair? The only unfair part about the deal was the 5 year term cap which I am sure the owners are willing to drop if they get their 50-50.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:04 AM
  #143
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Bettman got a solution to the "core economic issue" he continually *****ed about when the players offered a 50/50 split. Now's he's just nitpicking as to when he gets it. Bloody greed.
Are you talking about this cba discussion? The players have never offered a 50-50 split and have table several offers that start at or above 55-45 and don't get to 50-50 in 5 years.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 11:49 AM
  #144
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,710
vCash: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Are you talking about this cba discussion? The players have never offered a 50-50 split and have table several offers that start at or above 55-45 and don't get to 50-50 in 5 years.
Well their "mystery offer #3" was predicated on a 50/50 split, but guaranteeing money over and above that to players currently under contract (technically a 54.5% split if no growth occurs in 2012/13) but if growth occurs at 7% the NHLPA predicts, it's more like 52% in year one, then 50% for the remainder of the deal.

Stewie Griffin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 12:38 PM
  #145
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewie Griffin View Post
Well their "mystery offer #3" was predicated on a 50/50 split, but guaranteeing money over and above that to players currently under contract (technically a 54.5% split if no growth occurs in 2012/13) but if growth occurs at 7% the NHLPA predicts, it's more like 52% in year one, then 50% for the remainder of the deal.
The mystery offer was to pay the players a percentage of their contracts that would be lost going from 57 to 50 percent. I believe Fehr used 15% so the owners had to pay 15% of all contracts that currently exist and then the other 85% would be the players cap hit + new contracts. This isn't remotely realistic as many teams lost money last year and are looking bring the cap down to remain viable. It was a PR offer as they could say hey look we are offering 50-50 without actually offering anything. I don't understand why the player don't want 50-50 straight up with out roll back as all contracts would remain the same and they would still be paid what they signed for. But some how this is unfair to them?

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 01:34 PM
  #146
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Dollars are dollars. The cap is just a word. Even if your "cap" is placed at 50 million dollars but you're spending 70 million in salaries because that's what you signed on for, the split is 57% for atleast year one IF the owners honor the contracts. No matter what fancy accounting you do, you still have to accept a 57% split in year one to honour contracts. Unless players are being bought out. You could backload a contract or extend the years, but that's not what player's signed.

That's why a soft landing makes sense. Players get their contracts honoured, owners get a 50/50, and everyone's happy.

As far as the team's that need immediate cap (salary) relief, that's a problem of the overall system. The rich teams need to start sharing with the poor ones.


Last edited by MarkGio: 10-23-2012 at 01:44 PM.
MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 02:11 PM
  #147
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Dollars are dollars. The cap is just a word. Even if your "cap" is placed at 50 million dollars but you're spending 70 million in salaries because that's what you signed on for, the split is 57% for atleast year one IF the owners honor the contracts. No matter what fancy accounting you do, you still have to accept a 57% split in year one to honour contracts. Unless players are being bought out. You could backload a contract or extend the years, but that's not what player's signed.

That's why a soft landing makes sense. Players get their contracts honoured, owners get a 50/50, and everyone's happy.


As far as the team's that need immediate cap (salary) relief, that's a problem of the overall system. The rich teams need to start sharing with the poor ones.
Yes that is what the owners have said year 1(this year) has a cap of 70 million which gives teams a year to trade/ buy out players and no roll back so players earn 100% of their contracts. The reason this is immediate help is that it lowers the basement so smaller market teams don't have to overpay free agents and restricted free agents to reach the cap. I agree that revenue sharing needs to be fixed as it is not working.

Other than the 5 year cap on contracts the owners offered what you are suggesting I don't understand how the players found it unfair.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 02:39 PM
  #148
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
Yes that is what the owners have said year 1(this year) has a cap of 70 million which gives teams a year to trade/ buy out players and no roll back so players earn 100% of their contracts. The reason this is immediate help is that it lowers the basement so smaller market teams don't have to overpay free agents and restricted free agents to reach the cap. I agree that revenue sharing needs to be fixed as it is not working.

Other than the 5 year cap on contracts the owners offered what you are suggesting I don't understand how the players found it unfair.
Some of the teams that need the cap relief are already spending 50+ million this year anyways. Some teams that are supposively financially struggling are paying way above the cap floor too, so why would they do that when they knew the CBA was expiring? And then teams like Pheonix aren't going to be overpaying free agents no matter how low the basement is.

I think the whole system is unfair. It's a system that continually places responsibility on players salaries because some really rich teams are raising revenue while some teams are really poor and have to pay extra. The owners need to accept a cap trading system or luxury tax.

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 07:53 PM
  #149
TheHudlinator
Registered User
 
TheHudlinator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria,BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,828
vCash: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Some of the teams that need the cap relief are already spending 50+ million this year anyways. Some teams that are supposively financially struggling are paying way above the cap floor too, so why would they do that when they knew the CBA was expiring? And then teams like Pheonix aren't going to be overpaying free agents no matter how low the basement is.

I think the whole system is unfair. It's a system that continually places responsibility on players salaries because some really rich teams are raising revenue while some teams are really poor and have to pay extra. The owners need to accept a cap trading system or luxury tax.
We just saw last year Florida vastly overpay for UFA's so don't tell me small market teams don't overpay. You want a fair system but support trading cap space or a luxury tax which defeats the purpose of a cap so I don't believe what are saying is right at all.

TheHudlinator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-23-2012, 08:49 PM
  #150
MarkGio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,788
vCash: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGleninator View Post
We just saw last year Florida vastly overpay for UFA's so don't tell me small market teams don't overpay. You want a fair system but support trading cap space or a luxury tax which defeats the purpose of a cap so I don't believe what are saying is right at all.
Why is a struggling team overpaying? No poor team should be spending to the cap or overpaying players. It's like yelling at the kid at the cashier for getting your order wrong after you ate the burger! So when owners are whining about costs after they handed out gross salaries, why should the players pay the price? The players just want their contract.

What is the purpose of the cap? How is that purpose defeated by luxury tax or cap space trading?

MarkGio is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:41 AM.

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.