Hopefully positive news comes from the PA. I'm not expecting a deal today but maybe a reasonable counter offer and we can have something together early next week.
Does anyone have a link to an article with all the details? Or even better, the bullet points? Everywhere I seem to go only seems to talk about a few aspects.
On the face of it it does seem like a good deal. With the start date included, there is basically a deadline, so hopefully the start of the season is now in sight.
I do think some of the points are overkill though. I like being able to retain salary, I like that if a player retires the team remain on the hook and the extra year of RFA.
However, limiting contracts to 5 years and not allowing anything more than a 5% variance on deals seems like overkill. If you limit the salary variance year-to-year, then there should not be a need for a limit on contract length. I also think 5% hurts smaller teams that might want to defer some money to the following year etc, basically legitimate operational reasons. I'd be happy with no limit on contract length and that a player could be paid no less than 80% of his caphit in any 1 year of his contract.
Not sure I like the full 82 game schedule, and with the Olympics next season it could be 2 seasons in a row the season finishing later. As long as it reverts back, it doesn't matter... but then the Superbowl never went back to January.
Is this part true?
My thought....this rule helps the strength of the league in the long run and because this is designed to stop the extra long contacts that are mostly frontloaded to bring down the salary cap hit, the players are not going to agree to this. I hope I'm wrong because I like it, but I just don't think the players will agree to this because those contracts help bring up the value of all players. Again I hope I'm wrong because I miss hockey and I want the league to realize where they fit in popularity wise amongst all popular sports.
My thought....this rule helps the strength of the league in the long run and because this is designed to stop the extra long contacts that are mostly frontloaded to bring down the salary cap hit, the players are not going to agree to this. I hope I'm wrong because I like it, but I just don't think the players will agree to this because those contracts help bring up the value of all players. Again I hope I'm wrong because I miss hockey and I want the league to realize where they fit in popularity wise amongst all popular sports.
What I'm saying is that you need one or the other. If you limit contracts the 5 years, there isn't really a significant need to put a rule about salary variance, and certainly not one as strict as 5%. If you have the 5% rule and the rule about the caphit still counting on players who retire... then why bother with the maximum contract length?
The only way to read into that is that it is something they are expecting to move significantly on. Wouldn't be surprised if it is 8 years or so for maximum deal and a break allowing a signing bonus to not count in the 5% rule.
Unless the owners come back to the table quickly and willing to move, then it is difficult to see their offer as anything more than a publicity stunt to try and get the fans on their side.
The day after their offer is made, the players say they'll go to 50% as long as the contracts are honoured and the NHL responds with "they aren't speaking the same language"? So much for the 50-50 with no rollbacks...
The owners coming down from what they wanted, but the players aren't budging because they probably still hold a grudge about how things went last time. Leave the politics to the presidential election, make a deal, and play hockey.
I have a feeling this season is lost or at best will start in January. If the season is lost, they will lose a lot of fans, and I definitely won't give any money to them for a long time, bye bye season tickets.
What I'm saying is that you need one or the other. If you limit contracts the 5 years, there isn't really a significant need to put a rule about salary variance, and certainly not one as strict as 5%. If you have the 5% rule and the rule about the caphit still counting on players who retire... then why bother with the maximum contract length?
The only way to read into that is that it is something they are expecting to move significantly on. Wouldn't be surprised if it is 8 years or so for maximum deal and a break allowing a signing bonus to not count in the 5% rule.
I see your point...but I think the rule is intended to avoid the super rich owners from giving out 13 year deals for 100 million or so and the last three to five years total, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 million to bring down the cap hit. That's cheating the system in my opinion.
The owners coming down from what they wanted, but the players aren't budging because they probably still hold a grudge about how things went last time. Leave the politics to the presidential election, make a deal, and play hockey.
I have a feeling this season is lost or at best will start in January. If the season is lost, they will lose a lot of fans, and I definitely won't give any money to them for a long time, bye bye season tickets.
You are right, and if the League isn't willing to guarantee the players current contracts, then I don't think they understand the ill-will another lost season will cause. I don't live in North America, so they don't get much money from me anyway, but I'll be going to a lot more KHL matches this season if the NHL doesn't come back, and it might result in that continuing.
The tough thing is that the Blues might be one of the toughest hit. Yes, the team is improving, but locking out and raising ticket prices? That will be a tough sell in the short term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesman11
I see your point...but I think the rule is intended to avoid the super rich owners from giving out 13 year deals for 100 million or so and the last three to five years total, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1 million to bring down the cap hit. That's cheating the system in my opinion.
It is totally cheating the system, but if the 5% variance and retirees caphits continuing to count rules were implemented then that solves it. Let's say you give a 13 year, $97.5m contract the lowest you could pay in any single year would be $5.5m and the average would be $7.5m over the 13 years. Also, the rule about retiring would mean that the $7.5m caphit would still apply if the player retired for the final 3 or 4 years of the deal.
So if a team and player want to commit long term so the team gets a discount and the player gets the security then I don't see the issue. They aren't going to be able to avoid the caphit at the end of the career, and there will still be significant money to pay on the contract, so it will be tough to move if the player is dead weight.
Maybe the long term deal rule is to try and add some excitement to FA?
[QUOTE=Alklha;55100077]You are right, and if the League isn't willing to guarantee the players current contracts, then I don't think they understand the ill-will another lost season will cause. I don't live in North America, so they don't get much money from me anyway, but I'll be going to a lot more KHL matches this season if the NHL doesn't come back, and it might result in that continuing.
The tough thing is that the Blues might be one of the toughest hit. Yes, the team is improving, but locking out and raising ticket prices? That will be a tough sell in the short term.
It is totally cheating the system, but if the 5% variance and retirees caphits continuing to count rules were implemented then that solves it. Let's say you give a 13 year, $97.5m contract the lowest you could pay in any single year would be $5.5m and the average would be $7.5m over the 13 years. Also, the rule about retiring would mean that the $7.5m caphit would still apply if the player retired for the final 3 or 4 years of the deal.
So if a team and player want to commit long term so the team gets a discount and the player gets the security then I don't see the issue. They aren't going to be able to avoid the caphit at the end of the career, and there will still be significant money to pay on the contract, so it will be tough to move if the player is dead weight.
Maybe the long term deal rule is to try and add some excitement to FA?[/QUOTE]
I think that is exactly what they're saying, this will create parity and it will be better for the teams that don't usually compete. It gives their fan base a belief they have a chance, which makes the league stronger.
And the reason this will work better in the NHL than any other league in the US is because hockey is truly a global sport played at a very high level on two continents. Meaning there’s a larger pool of talent.
It's amazing they have gotten the 8 to 10 teams that want to keep their financial advantage to agree to these terms. I think they’re starting to get it!
But I also believe you’re correct with your assessment this is a cap within a cap, but it’s needed.
But with that being said I’m still not sure the players are willing to give this up.
Last edited by bluesman11: 10-19-2012 at 12:44 AM.
I am not on either side, but I am confused why the owners dont want to honor the contracts they have already given out. I dont blame the players for not liking that.
I was pissed off for a while...but now I just want the game back. Fall/winter just isn't the same with a game every two or three nights.
That said...don't come back until every team can be profitable and its ownership sustainable. The next league stoppage better not be for many, many decades after this debacle.
Stealth, I'm with you. It sounds like progress is finally in the works. The NHL is the only one of the 4 major sports that does not revenue share and is the only sport without without a major TV contract.
I'm tired of going through this every couple of years. Now is the time to crap or get off the pot. I use to be a die hard baseball fan, but when they lost their season, I never went back. I am getting to that point with hockey now. Maybe growing up and having a few kids changed my priorities.
I'm tired of going through this every couple of years. Now is the time to crap or get off the pot. I use to be a die hard baseball fan, but when they lost their season, I never went back. I am getting to that point with hockey now. Maybe growing up and having a few kids changed my priorities.
I have to agree with you. Tired of who gets how many million. I struggle to feed several children and make house payments. Both sides want to complain over who gets the next million? Really not buying any tickets for a couple years. May watch on TV, but hockey players are getting as greedy as Ozzie Smith wanting $3 million a year as a .200/.220 hitter. Shut up and play. Owners....It is a new America with 11% unemployment. You all better figure it out or you will be losing your shorts. Get your prices down to a reasonable level. Players be satisfied you are playing the sport you love for a living and getting paid well for it. Owners realize that your supply and demand curve will be declining when no one has any money.
