HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-24-2012, 12:56 AM
  #126
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
 
Hollywood Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: VANCOUVER
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edonator View Post
The NHL is willing to meet, but like Daly was quoted, no point in doing so if the NHLPA is not bringing anything new to the table.

The NHLPA haven't made any concessions. Getting to 50/50 and reaching the status quo that every other league has met, should have been a given. Common sense. The NHLPA didn't even address anything in their new proposals, save for the bit where their players would get the biggest chunk of revenue from any major sporting league.

The NHL, after their offer last week, is winning the PR war and the players are fumbling this. NHL has no reason to meet with the NHLPA unless they are going to bend. Good on them.
There's absolutely zero reason going to 50/50 is a "given" just because "every other league" has done so. You're talking about 2 leagues, the NBA and the NFL. Why is it a given that the NHL must follow their model? MLB is doing great without a salary cap or linkage.

Regardless, the NHLPA appears to have committed, at least philosophically and rhetorically, to a 50/50 split. This will lead to a pay cut for the players in some form or another. I'd say that represents a pretty major concession.

What concessions have the NHL made? I'd say a fair deal would be a 50/50 split, with the players winning on contract rights. I find it selfish on the part of the players to be so focused on guaranteeing already-signed contracts, although I understand it. The players should look at winning on contract rights instead, that's what happened in 2005 and it's benefited them.

Hollywood Burrows is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 01:07 AM
  #127
fools russian
Registered User
 
fools russian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 879
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Not looking good. Oh well. Hopefully we can have hockey back by October 2013.

Anyways, what's the difference between the union and the PA? They keep getting used and it confuses me.
They're the same thing.

fools russian is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 01:11 AM
  #128
VeteranNetPresence
Hey, Orpheus!
 
VeteranNetPresence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
There's absolutely zero reason going to 50/50 is a "given" just because "every other league" has done so. You're talking about 2 leagues, the NBA and the NFL. Why is it a given that the NHL must follow their model? MLB is doing great without a salary cap or linkage.
you're basically just spouting off what don fehr has been saying. get TV deals like the MLB has, and have have teams like the Yankee's and Red Sox and than maybe you can get a structure similar to the MLB.

VeteranNetPresence is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 01:19 AM
  #129
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lard_Lad View Post
And it's baffling how Bettman and the owners' negotiating committee are getting away with screwing so many big-revenue teams this way. I can't believe that guys like Aquilini, Rocky Wirtz, Mike Ilitch, and James Dolan are happy to take one in the teeth so Jeremy Jacobs and the poor half of the league can squeeze a few million more a year out of the players.
Those owners screwed themselves. Everyone knew what they were up to, they knew everyone else knew. What are they going to do? Say "they knew the they were dodging the cap and want to be let off?". Besides they were all warned publicly, I can only imagine what was said behind closed doors but I bet it was a lot blunted - the owners still chose to do it knowing the consequences which is why they won't complaint.

Besides none this matters for this CBA since none of the guys will retire in the next 6 years. I would not even be surprised if there are immunity buyouts planned to start the 2018 CBA. It makes much more sense for a buyout out of Luongo or Zetterberg or Kovalchuk to happen then when they are washed up and their salary is paid. From the NHL point view they only have to pay out a tiny fraction of what they pay out now and as far as Bettman is concerned that is far better outcome since the front weighted contracts are eating heaps of the 50% of HRR ATM. Any immunity buyouts now would not count against HRR if the players had their way.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 01:33 AM
  #130
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Besides none this matters for this CBA since none of the guys will retire in the next 6 years. I would not even be surprised if there are immunity buyouts planned to start the 2018 CBA. It makes much more sense for a buyout out of Luongo or Zetterberg or Kovalchuk to happen then when they are washed up and their salary is paid. From the NHL point view they only have to pay out a tiny fraction of what they pay out now and as far as Bettman is concerned that is far better outcome since the front weighted contracts are eating heaps of the 50% of HRR ATM. Any immunity buyouts now would not count against HRR if the players had their way.
Then why even have the rule? How does it benefit anyone?

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 01:34 AM
  #131
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billvanseattle View Post
and then no one near the cap would ever sign doan. there is no way the "rich" teams will allow themselves to be punished on existing contracts. the battle is between the owners and the players right now ... even though I have said repeatedly there is a battle between the owners in the background ... the rich owners are not going to get screwed by betman ... he's the puppet answering to the rich few.
The NHL wouldn't have put it into their offer if they weren't prepared to have it part of the next CBA.

opendoor is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 02:05 AM
  #132
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Then why even have the rule? How does it benefit anyone?
My guess - principle. It was a message that needed to be sent because it fit the direction of not hiding players in the minors, shorter contracts, 5% salary changes yearly.

Whether they intend to be completely strict and carry through with it we won't know for six years. As I said above it is a message that has to be sent now to match the ton of the CBA, and it is a message that has to be sent now because you couldn't put it in in 6 years. It is easier to back off later than skip it now and add it later.

Besides Gillis and Gilman will find someway to send him to the Miami Beach Hockey League then flip hos rights to a cap floor team in exchange for a $1m dud they want to get rid of. They can pay Luongo $1m a year to play beaches hockey for $5m hit - if he's still getting paid he hasn't retired.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 05:38 AM
  #133
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Burrows View Post
There's absolutely zero reason going to 50/50 is a "given" just because "every other league" has done so. You're talking about 2 leagues, the NBA and the NFL. Why is it a given that the NHL must follow their model? MLB is doing great without a salary cap or linkage.

Regardless, the NHLPA appears to have committed, at least philosophically and rhetorically, to a 50/50 split. This will lead to a pay cut for the players in some form or another. I'd say that represents a pretty major concession.

What concessions have the NHL made? I'd say a fair deal would be a 50/50 split, with the players winning on contract rights. I find it selfish on the part of the players to be so focused on guaranteeing already-signed contracts, although I understand it. The players should look at winning on contract rights instead, that's what happened in 2005 and it's benefited them.
MLB doesn't have much parity, with the odd exception here or there it's the same teams making the playoffs year after year, and there aren't that many teams that make it in the first place. Only 4 teams in each the NL and AL make the playoffs, 3 division winners and 1 WC after a 1 game playoff.

There are the rich teams, and the rest of the league which is used almost as a development league. Sometimes rich teams will epic fail like the Red Sox, but not often. The luxury tax system has not encouraged parity, it's just seen as a cost of doing business by teams like the Yankees.

Also, this 50/50 comparison to NBA and NFL is an apples vs oranges argument. Each league defines it's revenue differently, so it's a question of 50/50 of what?

Quote:
Then why even have the rule? How does it benefit anyone?
It's just Bettman punishing the high revenue owners, who probably aren't as strongly onside with the commissioner's office than the low revenue teams. If we read between the lines, we might be able to assume that the owners aren't exactly a united front. More likely there are two camps, high revenue teams vs the franchises in trouble. It's the teams in the middle that need to be swayed. If Bettman goes too hardline on the rich teams, and the lockout drags on too long and costs those teams a lot, he might find that his job is in jeopardy.

I think a better way to end these front-loaded contracts would be to go on a year by year basis, instead of averaging out cap-hit over the life of the contract. If Weber gets $14M this year and next, that's his cap hit for those two years.

Hammer79 is online now  
Old
10-24-2012, 06:08 AM
  #134
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
I think a better way to end these front-loaded contracts would be to go on a year by year basis, instead of averaging out cap-hit over the life of the contract. If Weber gets $14M this year and next, that's his cap hit for those two years.
I've wondered why they don't do this already. I think they feel it may be open to exploitation with teams, particularly rich teams manipulating their numbers and stacking their teams. Rich rebuilding teams using their cap and surplus dollars to overpaying UFAs in then trade them during the cheap years, paying young stars huge front loaded deals while the teams was well under cap so they could use $1m years later during the challenging phase.

As for bring it in now, it'd straight up destroy teams and they would be completely incapable of competing or fitting under the cap. Too little notice, unlike 6-8 we get to prepare for Luongo's hit.

For future deals under the proposed 5% per year change rules it's all moot anyway since you can't really do too much front loading or back loading.


Last edited by me2: 10-24-2012 at 06:38 AM.
me2 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 06:15 AM
  #135
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post

There are the rich teams, and the rest of the league which is used almost as a development league. Sometimes rich teams will epic fail like the Red Sox, but not often. The luxury tax system has not encouraged parity, it's just seen as a cost of doing business by teams like the Yankees.
MLB luxury tax is so high usually only two teams can get to it. It's basically a soft cap on the Yankees and nobody else, even then the Yankees are trying to work back towards it so they may be no luxury tax generated at all. The vast majority of teams can't get near it, it'd be the equivalent of a $110m NHL ceiling. Basically a TML tax. What did it raise last year for MLB, something terribly pointless like $13m.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
The current luxury tax system was instituted in 2003 as a way to discourage big market teams from having a substantially higher payroll than the rest of the league. Only four teams have ever exceeded the luxury tax threshold, the Boston Red Sox, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the Detroit Tigers, and the New York Yankees. Only the Red Sox and Yankees have exceed it twice, with the Yankees having contributed 95% of the total contributions.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 06:17 AM
  #136
billvanseattle
Registered User
 
billvanseattle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: bellingham
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
MLB doesn't have much parity, with the odd exception here or there it's the same teams making the playoffs year after year, and there aren't that many teams that make it in the first place. Only 4 teams in each the NL and AL make the playoffs, 3 division winners and 1 WC after a 1 game playoff.

There are the rich teams, and the rest of the league which is used almost as a development league. Sometimes rich teams will epic fail like the Red Sox, but not often. The luxury tax system has not encouraged parity, it's just seen as a cost of doing business by teams like the Yankees.

Also, this 50/50 comparison to NBA and NFL is an apples vs oranges argument. Each league defines it's revenue differently, so it's a question of 50/50 of what?



It's just Bettman punishing the high revenue owners, who probably aren't as strongly onside with the commissioner's office than the low revenue teams. If we read between the lines, we might be able to assume that the owners aren't exactly a united front. More likely there are two camps, high revenue teams vs the franchises in trouble. It's the teams in the middle that need to be swayed. If Bettman goes too hardline on the rich teams, and the lockout drags on too long and costs those teams a lot, he might find that his job is in jeopardy.

I think a better way to end these front-loaded contracts would be to go on a year by year basis, instead of averaging out cap-hit over the life of the contract. If Weber gets $14M this year and next, that's his cap hit for those two years.
re $14M - just cant see this happening. Minn and Nash will be so screwed. I think the final result will be all the existing contracts are grandfathered in.

re- two camps - I talked to someone in June in the Canucks organization, and he said at that time this was going to be a battle, because the rich teams may be smaller in number, but no way the old established teams and the wealthy teams are going to be dictated to by the newer poorer teams. I can see some form of revenue sharing, particularily if it doesn't come straight from gate receipts, but no way the rich are just going to hand over a large chunks of change. The battle with the players is important, but the NHL is using the disagreement between the owners as an excuse to smack the players back into line.

billvanseattle is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 07:55 AM
  #137
Havre
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 265
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
I've wondered why they don't do this already. I think they feel it may be open to exploitation with teams, particularly rich teams manipulating their numbers and stacking their teams. Rich rebuilding teams using their cap and surplus dollars to overpaying UFAs in then trade them during the cheap years, paying young stars huge front loaded deals while the teams was well under cap so they could use $1m years later during the challenging phase.
As for bring it in now, it'd straight up destroy teams and they would be completely incapable of competing or fitting under the cap. Too little notice, unlike 6-8 we get to prepare for Luongo's hit.

For future deals under the proposed 5% per year change rules it's all moot anyway since you can't really do too much front loading or back loading.
This would definitely happen. You would see a handful of rich teams building "super teams" for a couple of years for then to disappear again.

I don't like the cap (or the principle of having a cap) in the first place, but changing the way it is calculated in such a way would make it far worse (even if we would benefit from it).

Havre is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 07:42 PM
  #138
KDizzle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Japan
Posts: 8,144
vCash: 500
very interesting AMA

http://www.***********/r/IAmA/comment...t_the_lockout/

KDizzle is online now  
Old
10-24-2012, 08:14 PM
  #139
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDizzle View Post
I trust the ****** moderators when they say they verified that he's who he claims to be, but he seems very poorly informed.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:38 PM
  #140
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,374
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by fools russian View Post
They're the same thing.
OK I thought so. Weird they keep using both terms.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:23 PM
  #141
LuckyDay
Registered User
 
LuckyDay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Uncanny Valley
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
OK I thought so. Weird they keep using both terms.
Just keep in mind the PA is technically not a union. This is why Alberta and Quebec didn't afford them the same protection that real unions have. Its the same reason the NFL the players tried to recertify themselves, but as a negotiating tactic.

Still not sure what Bettman was trying to prove - I can guess that the Fehrs didn't table an offer first because Bettman would use that as leverage like he did the last time. Fehrs are trying to use the Leagues as a negotiating point but expected Bettman would pull something so they tabled three - they called his bluff.

Either way we know that Bettman is calling the shots now and not the 8 owners we were rumoured to hear about. Still can't believe he tabled revenue sharing.

I'd say the PA should just sign it but I just don't understand where they get the $600million difference.

LuckyDay is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 10:54 PM
  #142
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,974
vCash: 500
Smells an awful lot like something a wise marketer would pull and we all know about NHL's newly hired marketing agency.


Last edited by Tiranis: 10-24-2012 at 11:20 PM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:08 PM
  #143
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyDay View Post
Just keep in mind the PA is technically not a union. This is why Alberta and Quebec didn't afford them the same protection that real unions have. Its the same reason the NFL the players tried to recertify themselves, but as a negotiating tactic.
That couldn't be farther from the truth within Alberta. From the Alberta Labour Relations Board decision:

Quote:
[13] ...there can be no doubt that the NHLPA is a trade union within the definition of the Code.
http://www.alrb.gov.ab.ca/decisions/GE_06474.pdf

The decision in Alberta didn't go the NHLPA's way because, amongst other things, the players as a whole are considered a bargaining unit, and breaking that up into each team or each province would be both necessary to have found in their favour and terribly detrimental to the prospect of negotiations between the league and the NHLPA. The other reasons the board gave were that it wouldn't have changed the overall lockout, that it would have encouraged further posturing, and that the NHL, while not entirely complying with the requirements for a lockout, did comply for all practical purposes.


Last edited by LongRoad: 10-24-2012 at 11:15 PM.
LongRoad is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 11:26 PM
  #144
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Smells an awful like something a wise marketer would pull and we all know about NHL's newly hired marketing agency.
The ****** thing? Nah, I don't think so, it's too clumsy for that, and the league and its minions would've put more effort into getting it noticed. And I think I've got an idea who he is based on the clues he's dropped, a particular mid-level marketing guy on a US team. Not somebody that would get entrusted with leaking like that.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 03:28 PM
  #145
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
So if the NHL takes their latest offer of the table, does the blame game shift back to them? I'd say so.

Wisp is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 04:01 PM
  #146
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
So if the NHL takes their latest offer of the table, does the blame game shift back to them? I'd say so.
The NHL shook the blame for about half a day, until people realized exactly what that last proposal was.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 05:10 PM
  #147
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,374
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The NHL shook the blame for about half a day, until people realized exactly what that last proposal was.
Pretty much. As much as I'd like to get playing again, I'm strongly with the players here.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 07:22 PM
  #148
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
The NHL shook the blame for about half a day, until people realized exactly what that last proposal was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Pretty much. As much as I'd like to get playing again, I'm strongly with the players here.
Naw, not at all. The NHL proposed 50/50 in an offer that was pretty transparent. The other decided to come back with its same alternate interpretations of the universe once again. Maybe some fans were fooled because Fehr uttered the numbers 50/50, but in reality the PA's offers were far from that. It's no wonder the NHL walked out after only 10 minutes.

I guess Fehr's strategy was successful up to that point - it got the NHL down to 50/50 without the PA even tabling a serious offer, but I won't expect Bettman to bend any more without the PA returning to the same planet as the NHL. The PA originally said that it was willing to continue to operate under the old CBA. If the players liked it that much why aren't they willing to renegotiate within that framework?

The PA deserves the lion's share of the blame. It is led by a man who is willing to cut off the nose of its constituents despite their face.


Last edited by Chubros: 10-25-2012 at 07:37 PM.
Chubros is offline  
Old
10-25-2012, 07:39 PM
  #149
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
The NHL's offer was not nearly as transparent - or fair - as you are giving it credit as being. Both offers are pretty BS and to assign blame to one over the other is biased.

For me, I remind myself that is a lock out and not a strike. The NHL chose to initiate that.


Last edited by Wisp: 10-25-2012 at 08:31 PM.
Wisp is offline  
Old
10-26-2012, 12:11 AM
  #150
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
The NHL's offer was not nearly as transparent - or fair - as you are giving it credit as being. Both offers are pretty BS and to assign blame to one over the other is biased.

For me, I remind myself that is a lock out and not a strike. The NHL chose to initiate that.
apart from the "make hole" nonsense the NHL's offer was very transparent.

me2 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 01:23 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.