HFBoards

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

CBA Negotiations II: This is the song that never ends...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-07-2012, 08:00 PM
  #776
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
Sam Carchidi ‏@BroadStBull
Both sides have scheduled another meeting for tomorrow, so that's a positive.

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 08:02 PM
  #777
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,738
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus View Post
Yes, and if I ever get sad I can always shoot myself in the head with a shotgun instead of a revolver.
Hey shotguns are more effective. At least you'll be guaranteed to get the job done

Interesting news from today though. What's weird is Doug MacLean is basically saying yesterday's meeting was a huge waste of time, yet everyone else in the media appears to be optimistic. Proceed with caution?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 08:06 PM
  #778
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Hey shotguns are more effective. At least you'll be guaranteed to get the job done

Interesting news from today though. What's weird is Doug MacLean is basically saying yesterday's meeting was a huge waste of time, yet everyone else in the media appears to be optimistic. Proceed with caution?
Maclean is a clown. Always has been. Always will be

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 08:11 PM
  #779
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
@Real_ESPNLeBrun

Told that Make Whole as a concept was finally discussed at least to some degree tonight

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
More discussion on Make Whole as well as once again on Revenue Sharing expected Thursday....

Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice
NHL proposed on Oct. 16 $200 mil in revenue sharing among teams. NHLPA's initial proposal included $240 mil in rev. sharing.


Last edited by Krishna: 11-07-2012 at 08:25 PM.
Krishna is offline  
Old
11-07-2012, 10:38 PM
  #780
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
You could always buyout Bryzgalov and acquire Luongo?
We'll wait until you buyout Luongo.

Haute Couturier is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:12 AM
  #781
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
sounds like splitting the difference in the proposed revenue sharing from both sides makes too much sense. 220 million.
Hopefully the constructive talks continue and we can get this thing done within a week or so. Having hockey by Dec. 1 would be great consitering what things looked like not that long ago.
so I guess a 54-58 game season then?

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 07:01 AM
  #782
sa cyred
Yea....the Flyers...
 
sa cyred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Traveling...
Country: Cuba
Posts: 15,624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
sounds like splitting the difference in the proposed revenue sharing from both sides makes too much sense. 220 million.
Hopefully the constructive talks continue and we can get this thing done within a week or so. Having hockey by Dec. 1 would be great consitering what things looked like not that long ago.
so I guess a 54-58 game season then?
I remember readin an article. By following the 90s lockout it is possible to have a 70-71 game season.

sa cyred is online now  
Old
11-08-2012, 12:52 PM
  #783
GoneFullHextall
Fire Berube
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sa cyred View Post
I remember readin an article. By following the 90s lockout it is possible to have a 70-71 game season.
70 games would be tough I think, Unless we push the end of the reg season to the end of April.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:12 PM
  #784
RussianRocket10
Registered User
 
RussianRocket10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Country: Brazil
Posts: 4,134
vCash: 500
Please don't screw this up.

Quote:
Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
If NHL doesn't honour existing contracts and guarantee players $1.883 share there will be no deal anytime soon. Biggest day of negotiation.

RussianRocket10 is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:23 PM
  #785
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianRocket10 View Post
Please don't screw this up.
Much will be read into that.

Demanding $1.8 billion would be very, very bad.

Demanding pro-rated share of $1.8 billion through make-whole? Not that unreasonable, nor is it a significant departure from previous positions.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:31 PM
  #786
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussianRocket10 View Post
Please don't screw this up.
That number is 57% of revenue... so, the players want the exact same thing as the last CBA or else they take their ball and go home?

1) That isn't going to happen - ever.

2) I think (or else at least hope) Dreger may have rushed that tweet and put out an erroneous number.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 01:47 PM
  #787
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CootaRoo View Post
That number is 57% of revenue... so, the players want the exact same thing as the last CBA or else they take their ball and go home?

1) That isn't going to happen - ever.

2) I think (or else at least hope) Dreger may have rushed that tweet and put out an erroneous number.
The players want all contracts honored (presumably, after pro-rating), which is not exactly the same thing as a 57-43 split.

Basically, they are agreeing to a 50/50 split on the condition that the owners fund the costs of funding contracts in full. In year 1, its a semantic difference, but in year 2, that would result in a drop to 54/53 or so (since new contracts would be signed at the 50/50 figure).

The consensus seems to be that that arrangement would end in year 3, so if I understand it, it would likely be something like:

Players share: 57, 54, 50, 50, 50, 50.
Owners share: 43, 46, 50, 50, 50, 50.

Which isn't all that different from what most were predicting before the lockout started.


Last edited by Jack de la Hoya: 11-08-2012 at 01:55 PM. Reason: Sounded too personal.
Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:16 PM
  #788
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
The players want all contracts honored (presumably, after pro-rating), which is not exactly the same thing as a 57-43 split.

Basically, they are agreeing to a 50/50 split on the condition that the owners fund the costs of funding contracts in full. In year 1, its a semantic difference, but in year 2, that would result in a drop to 54/53 or so (since new contracts would be signed at the 50/50 figure).

The consensus seems to be that that arrangement would end in year 3, so if I understand it, it would likely be something like:

Players share: 57, 54, 50, 50, 50, 50.
Owners share: 43, 46, 50, 50, 50, 50.

Which isn't all that different from what most were predicting before the lockout started.
It's different in the sense that Make Whole (as it was last proposed, haven't heard anything different except the NHL is willing to pay for it) is deferred payments. So that 7% this year is deferred to each player over the life of his contract. The owners would still get 50% this year, and likely year 2 as well. It'd be year 3 where they would conceivably start contributing more than 50% to start covering the Make Whole payments.

McNasty is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:17 PM
  #789
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
The players want all contracts honored (presumably, after pro-rating), which is not exactly the same thing as a 57-43 split.

Basically, they are agreeing to a 50/50 split on the condition that the owners fund the costs of funding contracts in full. In year 1, its a semantic difference, but in year 2, that would result in a drop to 54/53 or so (since new contracts would be signed at the 50/50 figure).

The consensus seems to be that that arrangement would end in year 3, so if I understand it, it would likely be something like:

Players share: 57, 54, 50, 50, 50, 50.
Owners share: 43, 46, 50, 50, 50, 50.

Which isn't all that different from what most were predicting before the lockout started.
Here is the quote:

"If NHL doesn't honour existing contracts and guarantee players $1.883 share there will be no deal anytime soon."

The issue, then, isn't a 'semantic' one, it is a linked vs. de-linked one. Your percentages you present assume constant growth, which is by definition de-linkage once a certain number (1.883M) is guaranteed.

Like I said, I think Dreger was mistaken with that tweet because if he wasn't then I'm not sure why they are even negotiating - since the player stance he presents is the same one they had back in August.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:17 PM
  #790
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
It's different in the sense that Make Whole (as it was last proposed, haven't heard anything different except the NHL is willing to pay for it) is deferred payments. So that 7% this year is deferred to each player over the life of his contract. The owners would still get 50% this year, and likely year 2 as well. It'd be year 3 where they would conceivably start contributing more than 50% to start covering the Make Whole payments.
You might be right.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:48 PM
  #791
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib

NHL believed PA would go to 50/50 & negotiate "Make Whole." NHLPA instead again countered w proposal that gradually goes to 50/50. Today=big

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 02:58 PM
  #792
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib
If you're following others, you now know why I tweeted Wed. "didn't end well" @ NHL/NHLPA mtg. PA made player-share proposal NHL didn't like

2m Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
@Russostrib. Too soon to say, but, some suggest today isn't going great either. We should know soon

Krishna is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:10 PM
  #793
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
For an amnesty buyout I'd rather buyout Pronger.
Smaller cap hit, less years, salary paid by insurance.

IMO makes much less sense.

achdumeingute is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:15 PM
  #794
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
I think the players prefer the gradual step to 50/50 to avoid the huge spike in escrow payments they would have to make next season with the 57% revenue cap temporarily still in place.

Honestly, it seems like it makes more sense for the owners as well. Sure, it isn't the instant windfall that I am sure some owners are looking for, but it sounds better from a book-balancing perspective than just kicking the lump sum expenses of 'Make Whole' down the road, no?

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:18 PM
  #795
CootaRoo
Registered User
 
CootaRoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Smaller cap hit, less years, salary paid by insurance.

IMO makes much less sense.
Assuming you can re-sign bought out players immediately, I think Briere makes the most sense with a 6.5M cap hit for 3 more seasons (including the upcoming one).

Assuming you can't re-sign bought out players immediately, Pronger may be the only option that makes sense because we already traded Bob and have noone to replace Bryz.

CootaRoo is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:23 PM
  #796
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,498
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Smaller cap hit, less years, salary paid by insurance.

IMO makes much less sense.
Having Pronger on the books restricts your ability to re-sign your players. Matt Carle being an example.

Snotbubbles is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:29 PM
  #797
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 38,958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
Having Pronger on the books restricts your ability to re-sign your players. Matt Carle being an example.
I think Carle wanting 5.5 million kept Carle from being re-signed, regardless of Prongerstatus.

Other than that though, you're right. That 4.9ish million in dead space every offseason is a problem.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:31 PM
  #798
Ryker
Registered User
 
Ryker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Triangle, NC, USA
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 2,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Smaller cap hit, less years, salary paid by insurance.

IMO makes much less sense.
Unfortunately, Pronger is never again going to be of any use on the ice for the Flyers, so if you don't buy him out, that's dead money lying around. In effect, you've just reduced your salary cap, whereas with Bryz you at least have him playing, plus you can do something with Pronger's cap hit.

Ryker is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:42 PM
  #799
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,065
vCash: 500
Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice
NHL went from $180 mil (1st proposal) to $200 mil in rev. sharing. NHLPA went from $240 mil to $260 mil.


Krishna is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 03:56 PM
  #800
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Tom Gulitti ‏@TGfireandice
NHL went from $180 mil (1st proposal) to $200 mil in rev. sharing. NHLPA went from $240 mil to $260 mil.

Without context, that's pretty meaningless.

Perhaps the NHLPA gave on their revenue share, and in exchange demanded an additional increase in revenue sharing?

That tweet makes it seem like a petty game of moving the goal posts.

Jack de la Hoya 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 05:49 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.