HFBoards

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

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VII: The Last Waltz "Cut the sheet & drop the puck!"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-21-2012, 12:54 PM
  #351
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
PA still wants the rewards without the risks, nothing's changed.
You do realize that the $8m payroll range last season was +/- 14%. So they may want the Cap higher, but they're also proposing making the floor lower.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:56 PM
  #352
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Absurd as usual. There are some issues I think the PA should be fighting for.

But doing everything they can to avoid putting any skin in the business and guaranteeing themselves a certain share of the revenue no matter what is not a serious proposition.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 12:57 PM
  #353
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
You do realize that the $8m payroll range last season was +/- 14%. So they may want the Cap higher, but they're also proposing making the floor lower.
Yeah, but the number teams fighting the cap greatly exceeds the number fighting the floor.

I just can't believe at this stage they would propose a guaranteed $ amount.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:01 PM
  #354
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Yeah, but the number teams fighting the cap greatly exceeds the number fighting the floor.

I just can't believe at this stage they would propose a guaranteed $ amount.
They aren't.

The player's share is still set at 50% plus make whole. If the cap is $67m and the players exceed 50%, the amount they'll lose from their escrow will just be larger.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:03 PM
  #355
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
They aren't.

The player's share is still set at 50% plus make whole. If the cap is $67m and the players exceed 50%, the amount they'll lose from their escrow will just be larger.
Yep, you're right. I'll cool down.

edit: Thanks for setting me straight. This process has gotten me pretty jaded, I forgot to think before assuming sudden doom.


Last edited by Brian Boyle: 11-21-2012 at 01:09 PM.
Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:03 PM
  #356
CH2
Registered User
 
CH2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NH
Posts: 1,360
vCash: 500
What exactly have the owners given up?

CH2 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:09 PM
  #357
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Doesn't really change the bottom dollar. Helps the players with contract signing but the teams pay 50% of revenue regardless. It's not putting more money in player pockets, just flexibility for everyone. Minor concession.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:09 PM
  #358
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Yeah, but the number teams fighting the cap greatly exceeds the number fighting the floor.
but the whole system is intended to protect the teams at the floor...so limiting how much you are forcing the teams in legit financial trouble to spend is a big deal for those teams imo

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:11 PM
  #359
Lundsanity30
Registered User
 
Lundsanity30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CH2 View Post
What exactly have the owners given up?
Their time that's about it

Lundsanity30 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:14 PM
  #360
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
The bonus thing: teams had bonuses, no matter how ridiculous, count against the cap until they were impossible to obtain. The isles were "cap compliant" when they were never going to reach that threshold. Get rid of cheats for players, then get rid of cheats for teams. And the floor is lowered.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:15 PM
  #361
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
but the whole system is intended to protect the teams at the floor...so limiting how much you are forcing the teams in legit financial trouble to spend is a big deal for those teams imo
Yeah, i hope people realize there's no actual obligation to spend to the cap.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:19 PM
  #362
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...31419119288320

Quote:
I lied. I'm back. Good catch by @KatieStrangESPN on this: In yrs 2 thru 5, players’ share in dollars may not be less than previous yr.
Looks like my outrage was justified, though a little premature

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:29 PM
  #363
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
I really don't think that item will last beyond the first round of negotiation on this proposal. Outright linkage of salary growth to revenue growth is still a big deal. Really, though, if they wanted to do that it should start in year 3 and remove the $67m requirement.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:29 PM
  #364
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...31419119288320



Looks like my outrage was justified, though a little premature
Is it the cap can't drop from year to year or the total dollars spent on salaries can't drop? BIG difference....

BrooklynRangersFan is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:31 PM
  #365
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
In Fehr's words:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992

Quote:
There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.
Still won't acknowledge their part in the lockout.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:32 PM
  #366
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
Is it the cap can't drop from year to year or the total dollars spent on salaries can't drop? BIG difference....
Yeah, it's both.

The first one is what I (wrongly) reacted to initially, thinking it was actually the total dollars--which also happened to be true.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:33 PM
  #367
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,780
vCash: 500
Wait a minute. The NBA agreed to 2 transition years of $58M because the cap would have decreased with the players getting 50% from 57%. The cap is expected to increase next season based on their revenue projections of $5B this season. The NHL proposed 1 year of transition at $70.2M for 12-13 which was based on playing a 82 game season. The PA proposes $67.25M and its a problem. The PA proposed the floor being made of a % in August. I heard Bill Daly on the Fan590 discussing it and he didn't seem to have an issue with it. He is one who brought it up.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:36 PM
  #368
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,831
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Wait a minute. The NBA agreed to 2 transition years of $58M because the cap would have decreased with the players getting 50% from 57%. The cap is expected to increase next season based on their revenue projections of $5B this season. The NHL proposed 1 year of transition at $70.2M for 12-13 which was based on playing a 82 game season. The PA proposes $67.25M and its a problem. The PA proposed the floor being made of a % in August. I heard Bill Daly on the Fan590 discussing it and he didn't seem to have an issue with it.
It's expected to increase, sure. But NHLPA still wants the reward without the risk.

Brian Boyle is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:36 PM
  #369
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
I really don't think that item will last beyond the first round of negotiation on this proposal. Outright linkage of salary growth to revenue growth is still a big deal. Really, though, if they wanted to do that it should start in year 3 and remove the $67m requirement.
I dont either. I dont suppose anyone does, not even Fehr.

So the question is, why if he proposing it more than 2 months into the lockout?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:37 PM
  #370
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
What I find odd is the inherent contradiction in the proposal.

"Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement"

"In years two through five of this Agreement, the players' share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year."

Unless there is something creative about this (maybe a continuation of the make whole provision), those two sentences are conflicting.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:41 PM
  #371
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,296
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
In Fehr's words:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992



Still won't acknowledge their part in the lockout.
So basically de-linkage? I am very confused by the details emerging about this proposal.

But if in any way it is de-linked, in that the players are guaranteed a set $ amount, then...

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:43 PM
  #372
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Owners don't like the big Make Whole $ early in agreement: 2012-13 - $182M 2013-14 - $128M 2014-15 - $72M 2015-16 - $11M (Total $393M).
https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/sta...37024856924161

Quote:
Question is...will owners negotiate off the proposal and will PA accept much lower than $182 mil in year 1?
https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger/sta...37311357243392

Quote:
@DarrenDreger I can't see why they wouldn't negotiate off it - the $$$ aspects are identical to what they proposed
https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/271338002507235329

Thank you.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:44 PM
  #373
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,442
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I dont either. I dont suppose anyone does, not even Fehr.

So the question is, why if he proposing it more than 2 months into the lockout?
Because as much as this proposal is finally linked to revenue growth, the main thing the NHLPA is trying to do is to get the league to move off of its contracting demands.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:44 PM
  #374
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
What I find odd is the inherent contradiction in the proposal.

"Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement"

"In years two through five of this Agreement, the players' share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year."

Unless there is something creative about this (maybe a continuation of the make whole provision), those two sentences are conflicting.
The very idea of a "make whole" is a contradiction. If the players are made whole, they're getting more than 50%... And if they're getting 50%... Then their contracts are not being honored in full.

It's all a bs way of steadily decreasing to 50/50. Which is why thie shouldn't be taking this long to figure out.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:44 PM
  #375
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
It's expected to increase, sure. But NHLPA still wants the reward without the risk.
Right, if it does increase, wonderful.

If it doesnt, both sides deserve to suffer from it.

Noone know whats going to happen to league revenues over the next few years because of this newest work stoppage episode.

Bleed Ranger Blue 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 08:16 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.