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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
