Sheppard's in the AHL and Setoguchi's in the ECHL. Wanna rethink that?
I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Morrow retire. Iggy not a chance though.
Morrow's body definitely betrays his age, but I think there's still plenty of teams out there willing to give him a one year deal (heck, I wouldn't put it past DW to kick the tires on him ).
The expired CBA did create and make worse welfare cases. The sharing itself does not create them. The cap floor enforces spending of money that teams may not have. Rev share can help the product to be more competitive (balanced) leaguewide. Less teams that are perennial basket cases.
Couple of things. Part of the problem for low rev teams is that the floor is rising faster than league growth. They had the cap range as static so that the lower end of the range by the previous CBA was going to accelerate faster than league growth. Without an increase of rev share or a change in the ranging system, the low rev teams had two strikes against them. The NHL redistributes 1/3 the amount by percentage of the next lowest sharing league of the big 4. That isn't close. The net profit for the league is well below by percentage of all of the other 3 of the big 4. The NHL players receive 14% more of the total revenue of the league than the next closest league distributes to their players.
Top this off with a low rev team wanting to improve its lot. It has to spend yet more for better players to be better able to compete to draw fans. Vicious cycle. Major kudos to low rev teams who succeed despite the odds stacked against them. That isn't just success, it is a miracle.
One main issue is that the PA recognizes the state of low rev teams but they are violently and unalterably opposed to giving another windfall to high rev teams to create a higher trickle to the low rev markets. The last CBA was among other things effectively a revenue transfer from low rev teams to high rev teams by capping the expenses of high rev teams and enforcing higher expenses on low rev teams. The last CBA was a windfall for the big guys.
The mechanism of the last CBA gave pay increases to all but the first tier of players if you divide skills into 4 tiers. The top tier took it in the neck. The proposals from both sides seem to aim to increase the relative pay of the top tier.
The highlighted stat is a good one that I hadn't seen. Its consistent with my thinking that the players are getting a good deal on the whole and missed a chance to negotiate off the platform the League advanced at 50/50 share of revenues.
Yes - it takes two to negotiate so there is always blame to share, but effective negotiating also recognizes when you have a 'good enough' deal from which to work. Feher missed out on a good opportunity in my mind.
Hoping we haven't lost the season but it sure is looking like it.
So the NHLPA actually discussed the option of decertifying over the weekend... They voted against it, but the fact that they even discussed it is telling.
Everyone loves to piss all over Bettman, but the book on Donald Fehr is just as bad or worse. There has been a work stoppage in 6 of the 8 labor negotiations in which he has been involved, and it wouldn't surprise me if he leads the union down the road to total Armageddon in this one. He misread the situation from the start and he's now backed into a corner with only two real options: surrender or pull the pin on the grenade and blow it up. I don't think his ego will allow him to choose surrender, so unless something magical happens in negotiations this week, I think things are going to get a lot uglier real fast.
The highlighted stat is a good one that I hadn't seen. Its consistent with my thinking that the players are getting a good deal on the whole and missed a chance to negotiate off the platform the League advanced at 50/50 share of revenues.
Yes - it takes two to negotiate so there is always blame to share, but effective negotiating also recognizes when you have a 'good enough' deal from which to work. Feher missed out on a good opportunity in my mind.
Do look a couple sentences before that highlight. NHL revenue sharing is 66% lower than other leagues. That is the biggest problem that needs to be rectified.
The NHL is not exactly a cash-cow league, it's not making so much money hand over fist that it can easily make fair payroll on a smaller percentage of revenues. It is going to have higher labor costs by percentage because it is a less successful product. So that figure is not inherently damning of the players. It could just as easily be used to condemn the owners who should see a higher player share in a less popular league as a necessity.
Remember all this lip about the NHL being a "blue collar league" ...
The highlighted stat is a good one that I hadn't seen. Its consistent with my thinking that the players are getting a good deal on the whole and missed a chance to negotiate off the platform the League advanced at 50/50 share of revenues.
I didn't really follow the other lockouts that deeply, but was the definition of basketball-related revenue (BBRR) or football-related revenue (FBRR) as hot a topic as HRR has been? And how do those compare.
Looking at an article I saw on the other day, they talked about the panthers as a team, operating at a loss, but during the previous lockout, instead of gaining income, the ownership group had it's worst year ever. That doesn't really sound like the team is truly operating at a loss, just a loss under certain definitions. All of that, to me, suggests that is a very strong argument that the definition of HRR is very much slanted towards the ownership. If that isn't the case for the NBA/NFL, then while the NHL players may get 14% more of the "revenues" that revenue pie is defined to be a smaller portion of the "real" revenue pie that it would be under a more comparable definition, and perhaps that 14% makes up some of that difference?
I didn't really follow the other lockouts that deeply, but was the definition of basketball-related revenue (BBRR) or football-related revenue (FBRR) as hot a topic as HRR has been? And how do those compare.
Looking at an article I saw on the other day, they talked about the panthers as a team, operating at a loss, but during the previous lockout, instead of gaining income, the ownership group had it's worst year ever. That doesn't really sound like the team is truly operating at a loss, just a loss under certain definitions. All of that, to me, suggests that is a very strong argument that the definition of HRR is very much slanted towards the ownership. If that isn't the case for the NBA/NFL, then while the NHL players may get 14% more of the "revenues" that revenue pie is defined to be a smaller portion of the "real" revenue pie that it would be under a more comparable definition, and perhaps that 14% makes up some of that difference?
Read the CBA on definitions and where there have been disputes on what is and is not included in HRR. With the exception of limited deductions allowed for pre-season expenses, I don't find much excluded that should be going to the players and isn't, and the players even got a cut of city subsidies from taxpayers to prop up two teams (definitely not HRR in the true sense). Fehr was the one who took the league to court on subsidies and is trumpeting that as one of his talking points. HRR may not be exact, but it is close and some of the deductions are very legitimate.
I didn't really follow the other lockouts that deeply, but was the definition of basketball-related revenue (BBRR) or football-related revenue (FBRR) as hot a topic as HRR has been? And how do those compare.
Looking at an article I saw on the other day, they talked about the panthers as a team, operating at a loss, but during the previous lockout, instead of gaining income, the ownership group had it's worst year ever. That doesn't really sound like the team is truly operating at a loss, just a loss under certain definitions. All of that, to me, suggests that is a very strong argument that the definition of HRR is very much slanted towards the ownership. If that isn't the case for the NBA/NFL, then while the NHL players may get 14% more of the "revenues" that revenue pie is defined to be a smaller portion of the "real" revenue pie that it would be under a more comparable definition, and perhaps that 14% makes up some of that difference?
That article was a joke. It's the same article that pops up every few years, written by a journalist with no finance training or background, using extremely limited financial information and making a bunch of assumptions with no support for them. And on top of all of that, even if you took his concluded income and allocated every bit to the hockey team, it would still be a ridiculously inadequate return on investment.
The simple fact is that hockey player compensation is way too high right now relative to the economics of the league. Second, the contracting issues that the owners are fighting for are huge for them, because hockey is fundamentally different than the other 3 big sports, in that the 'star' element is not as important as the 'team' element, in terms of either on-ice performance or financial success. NHL franchises cannot get locked into long term contracts and expect to be able to maintain stability across the league. And increased revenue sharing is just making the owners' pay for an issue that is systemic to the sport and directly reflective of the value of labor.
I would be willing to bet that the owners will refuse to bend on three things: 50/50 immediately, contract length/annual variance and make whole much above what they've already offerred. I think those are the the three key issues that they will stay dug in on. If the players agreed to that, the owners would probably cave on everything else.
The expired CBA did create and make worse welfare cases. The sharing itself does not create them. The cap floor enforces spending of money that teams may not have. Rev share can help the product to be more competitive (balanced) leaguewide. Less teams that are perennial basket cases.
Couple of things. Part of the problem for low rev teams is that the floor is rising faster than league growth. They had the cap range as static so that the lower end of the range by the previous CBA was going to accelerate faster than league growth. Without an increase of rev share or a change in the ranging system, the low rev teams had two strikes against them. The NHL redistributes 1/3 the amount by percentage of the next lowest sharing league of the big 4. That isn't close. The net profit for the league is well below by percentage of all of the other 3 of the big 4. The NHL players receive 14% more of the total revenue of the league than the next closest league distributes to their players.
Top this off with a low rev team wanting to improve its lot. It has to spend yet more for better players to be better able to compete to draw fans. Vicious cycle. Major kudos to low rev teams who succeed despite the odds stacked against them. That isn't just success, it is a miracle.
One main issue is that the PA recognizes the state of low rev teams but they are violently and unalterably opposed to giving another windfall to high rev teams to create a higher trickle to the low rev markets. The last CBA was among other things effectively a revenue transfer from low rev teams to high rev teams by capping the expenses of high rev teams and enforcing higher expenses on low rev teams. The last CBA was a windfall for the big guys.
The mechanism of the last CBA gave pay increases to all but the first tier of players if you divide skills into 4 tiers. The top tier took it in the neck. The proposals from both sides seem to aim to increase the relative pay of the top tier.
Looks like the players have finally come our of their alternative reality and decided to negotiate in terms that can actually lead to a deal. If what Fehr said today is even remotely accurate, there is hope that a deal may be able to be made. The players appear to be caving and, if so, maybe the owners can meet them in the middle on the $ gap that remains. Shame the idiots at the NHLPA didn't have enough foresight to realize that we could have gotten to this spot 2 months ago.
This proposal is shameful as it is for only 5 years. The shorter length of the PA proposal penalizes the fans. Other leagues are going for much longer terms on their CBAs.
As fans, we should all be demanding 10 years or longer with whatever agreement they reach.
This proposal is shameful as it is for only 5 years. The shorter length of the PA proposal penalizes the fans. Other leagues are going for much longer terms on their CBAs.
As fans, we should all be demanding 10 years or longer with whatever agreement they reach.
Also unlike early claims in morning ,, Outside of year 1 it has no linkage to revenue (Thus it is really same as all the other NHLPA offers)
As I only pop in here every now and then to see if there's exciting new news. I've decided this Fehr guy sucks. At least we all sort of knew Bettman sucked.
Also, man, some of you guys are real smart about this stuff. You should all create a new CBA and just send it to both sides to sign.
Fehr is such a ******. I just read the actual terms of the NHLPA proposal that he claims is only $182 million apart from the league's. Not even close. They haven't removed the guarantee and they haven't budged on any of the big player contracting issues. What a bunch of fools. The season is over. The players are biting off their noses to spite their faces.
What really intrigues me is the fact that guys like Brad Richards are tweeting that that what they've proposed is a huge concession and really close to a deal, when it's not even close. Makes me wonder if union leadership is really clearly articulating the situation to the players or if the players are just too stupid to understand it.
Fehr is such a ******. I just read the actual terms of the NHLPA proposal that he claims is only $182 million apart from the league's. Not even close. They haven't removed the guarantee and they haven't budged on any of the big player contracting issues. What a bunch of fools. The season is over. The players are biting off their noses to spite their faces.
What really intrigues me is the fact that guys like Brad Richards are tweeting that that what they've proposed is a huge concession and really close to a deal, when it's not even close. Makes me wonder if union leadership is really clearly articulating the situation to the players or if the players are just too stupid to understand it.
Agreed. As for the players, I think it's because of who they are. Football, baseball, and basketball players are generally a lot more selfish. It's widely understood that hockey players are far more down to earth, heart and soul guys for the most part, so it's easy for them to be fed stuff about pride (standing up for what you deserve) and integrity (making the owners accountable for contracts they've already signed) even when it's not in their best interest.
).
