HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

Bob McKenzie: NHL doesn't need max contract length

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 05:10 AM
  #101
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,685
vCash: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by DyerMaker66 View Post
That's not even close to being correct. First off: HRR does not include all the revenue that it could (and should, imo). Secondly, the union is asking for a gradual decline to 50% and the honouring of current contracts: They're not demanding millions; they're asking for the money they've earned in the contracts they've signed to date.
And the NHL has agreed to give them what they have signed for with escrow and playing with the cap in the next fews years. Players get the money... Whats your point?

NORiculous is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:16 AM
  #102
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
I wonder whete we'd be if the NHLPA sat down with the league a year ago... When the NHL said it was ready to talk.

But seriously, since the NHL is up to a point where the are past the give and take, and that the NHLPA is still trying to stand ground... We would probably be in the same position no matter when they started talking.
You can see for yourself from the NHL's first proposal that they weren't serious until a month ago when they presented their first real proposal. You can see from all their previous proposals that they wouldn't have taken any of those negotiations seriously if they happened. And with the league ongoing at that point last season, very little attention would have been given to it at that point.

We'd probably still be here but serious negotiations wouldn't have taken place at that time even if the league was willing.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 10:44 AM
  #103
BowieSabresFan
Registered User
 
BowieSabresFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post
And the NHL has agreed to give them what they have signed for with escrow and playing with the cap in the next fews years. Players get the money... Whats your point?
It's sort of hard to keep track of at this point, but I thought the last offer by the owners on the "make whole" only covered contracts for the next two years.

BowieSabresFan is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:23 AM
  #104
Barrie22
Shark fan in hiding
 
Barrie22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowieSabresFan View Post
It's sort of hard to keep track of at this point, but I thought the last offer by the owners on the "make whole" only covered contracts for the next two years.
it i believe covers it up to the point where no team would be over the cap any more because of contracts coming off the books, and we would be really at a 50-50 split.

Barrie22 is offline  
Old
11-15-2012, 11:36 AM
  #105
redbull
game on
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,947
vCash: 500
Bob McKenzie will be locked-out by Bettman if he's not careful.

redbull is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:15 AM
  #106
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
@BWildeCTV: Name one thing that the ##NHL has moved on. Not from their first offer, but one thing from previous CBA. And they're exasperated? Please.
My thoughts exactly. There's a lot of fluff out there but this summarizes everything for me.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 01:22 AM
  #107
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
My thoughts exactly. There's a lot of fluff out there but this summarizes everything for me.

Collectively, the players won't lose one dollar under the NHL's last proposal, unless the NHLPA-projected revenue increases do not occur.

Timmy is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 02:54 AM
  #108
burf
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 543
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
Collectively, the players won't lose one dollar under the NHL's last proposal, unless the NHLPA-projected revenue increases do not occur.
But they will lose a number of contractual rights. Same amount of money they're making now (but significantly lower than they WOULD have made under the prior deal, which is in itself a giant concession), but with significantly worse contract rights? No idea why the players aren't lining up to sign that offer.

burf is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 03:12 AM
  #109
Timmy
Registered User
 
Timmy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by burf View Post
But they will lose a number of contractual rights. Same amount of money they're making now (but significantly lower than they WOULD have made under the prior deal, which is in itself a giant concession), but with significantly worse contract rights? No idea why the players aren't lining up to sign that offer.
As I've postulated before, if the NHLPA agreed to the basic framework proposed by the Owners regarding the make whole concept, it's my belief (which could be horribly wrong) that the League would give ground in some or all of the ancilliary issues.

Excluding the League's first proposal, the subsequent ones were begging for negotiation if the primary concern of HRR split was dealt with.

There is no requirement for Mr. Fehr to counter Mr. Bettman's offer, and he shouldn't be villainized for failing to do so; however, no deal will be struck until the PA realizes that this is the only way to continue making a living in the National Hockey League.

Timmy is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:53 AM
  #110
mrzeigler
Geno and Juss '13
 
mrzeigler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 3,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Bob McKenzie, in his latest article on TSN.ca, states that, with the salary cap + a 50-50 split of HRR, the league doesn't need max contract lengths of 5 years. He says the players, however, should accept a max 5 percent variance in contracts to prevent cap circumvention.

He makes an additional point that the league should have made their offer of covering the Make Whole back in October when there was still a chance of an 82 game season. Their concession of covering $149M in the first year would have made up the difference if we're talking revenues based on this full season projection.

He explains it very well here:



I wonder where we'd be if the NHL didn't decide to just play in the park until November and seriously got down to it with their first offer, or October at the very least.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409277
I almost typed "Quick, to the Deloreon!"

Silly me, when you have a time-travelling Deloreon, you don't need to do anything quickly.

mrzeigler is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:00 AM
  #111
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 24,574
vCash: 150
I don't think they need the max contract length to be 5 years, especially if they put in the neccesary failsafes on contracts (variance and limiting signing bonuses). If it's 7 or 8 years for insurance purposes, whatever. Too bad compromise isn't in either side's vocabulary.

NJDevs26 is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 08:38 AM
  #112
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,726
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
As I've postulated before, if the NHLPA agreed to the basic framework proposed by the Owners regarding the make whole concept, it's my belief (which could be horribly wrong) that the League would give ground in some or all of the ancilliary issues.

Excluding the League's first proposal, the subsequent ones were begging for negotiation if the primary concern of HRR split was dealt with.

There is no requirement for Mr. Fehr to counter Mr. Bettman's offer, and he shouldn't be villainized for failing to do so; however, no deal will be struck until the PA realizes that this is the only way to continue making a living in the National Hockey League.
And that for me is the problem. Bettman acts as if this is a dictatorship. It's no wonder the players aren't lining up to kiss his a$$.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-16-2012, 07:42 PM
  #113
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 12,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
And that for me is the problem. Bettman acts as if this is a dictatorship. It's no wonder the players aren't lining up to kiss his a$$.
They don't have to line up to kiss his a$$....they need to use their heads and get their leadership to be able to recognize the best deal out there...end of story...both sides have exhausted this BS...it's over, get a deal or go get a real job...

Once again, Gary Bettman works for the owners, and Don Fehr works for the players...the 30 owners are not going to let 700 employees tell them how it is...just deal with it guys...

BLONG7 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 10:30 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.