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.

Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-06-2012, 08:41 PM
  #1
Hank Chinaski
Mod Supervisor
#FreeHutch
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,515
vCash: 500
Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

Continue here.


Last edited by Hank Chinaski: 12-08-2012 at 03:41 PM. Reason: oops
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 02:52 PM
  #2
Blackhawkswincup
Global Moderator
 
Blackhawkswincup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chicagoland
Country: United States
Posts: 111,641
vCash: 50
Lockout IV: Still so close, and yet still so far (Moderated: see post #1)

MOD NOTE:

Once again, a reminder that this is a business forum. Posts that in no way contribute to the business aspect of this lockout will be deleted. Repeated posting of this nature will be met with infractions and thread bans.

There's a thread on the NHL talk forum if you wish to focus on the non-business aspects of this lockout.



Link to previous thread (#3): http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1303703

Ok , Continue discussion

Blackhawkswincup is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:17 PM
  #3
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,677
vCash: 500
Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:31 PM
  #4
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?
The NHLPA variance proposal is a lot more than 25%. Their rule is the lowest year in salary must be at least 25% of the highest year. So, a contract can look like this. 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 2.5m, 2.5m, 2.5m

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:39 PM
  #5
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max).
I don't think you actually know what the franchise tag in the NFL actually does. It does not give teams the ability to gain an exception to salary cap rules, but instead allows the team to prevent a player from reaching free agency by paying a very high premium.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:42 PM
  #6
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I don't think you actually know what the franchise tag in the NFL actually does. It does not give teams the ability to gain an exception to salary cap rules, but instead allows the team to prevent a player from reaching free agency by paying a very high premium.
That wasn't the point, it was to pick out the example of making exceptions on a team for certain players.

Thanks, though.

[IMG]http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/While+on+******.+Stuck+on+******+because+someone+i s+wrong_7db740_3459448.jpg[/IMG]

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 03:46 PM
  #7
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,374
vCash: 500
It also completely nullifies the 5 yr contract length. 12.9% of the current contracts exceed 5 years (6yrs+). And something like 40 of those 89 contracts are 6 yrs exactly.

So by adding a clause that allows X contracts longer than the minimum, all you've done is made the 5 yr rule meaningless as most players do not get contracts longer than that.

Sorry, but it doesn't solve anything from the NHL's point of view.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:14 PM
  #8
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
That wasn't the point, it was to pick out the example of making exceptions on a team for certain players.

Thanks, though.

[IMG]http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/While+on+******.+Stuck+on+******+because+someone+i s+wrong_7db740_3459448.jpg[/IMG]
The Franchise tag is not an example of an exception though. Its basically the same thing as a team option. A real exception would be like something in the NBA where players can sign for more money with their current team than they can on the open market.

Fish on The Sand is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:21 PM
  #9
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 19,773
vCash: 500
Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.

Do Make Say Think is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:22 PM
  #10
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.
Yeah, there are 2 big issues with contract length. Insurance and Cap circumvention. Contract Term limits to 5 years solves both those issues.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:26 PM
  #11
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 12,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Stovepipe Cup View Post
Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?
If it only affects a small portion of the players with the cap bending contracts what would be the point of implementing a rule with exceptions that allows the cap same bending practice to continue?

mouser is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:51 PM
  #12
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 16,575
vCash: 500
As for the "who does the 5 year term hurt" argument, IMO it hurts the star players much more than the mid tier guys. The PA is just saying that it will kill the middle class as a PR stunt.

No team is going to pay someone 10M+ a season and kill their depth, let alone 3-5 guys 8M+. This isn't the NBA where 2-3 guys can make you a great team, you need depth to compete in the NHL.

By not being able to circumvent the cap, high end players will have to take much less salary than what they're getting right now. TBH, there isn't enough cap space to fit all these guys on circumvention deals to go around.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:51 PM
  #13
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PenguinPower420 View Post
The owners are unreasonable to hold the season up to impose five year contracts. Think about all the little people getting screwed by this greed.
I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 04:53 PM
  #14
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.
I don't know either.
That's a fair argument.

I'll take $200 Million more in exchange for 5 year contracts though

(What I'm guessing Fehr is angling for)

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:01 PM
  #15
Ron C.
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Ron C.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Amherst, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,311
vCash: 500
If owners can't insure contracts over 5 years, I find it hard to criticize them for wanting to cover their investment costs. At this point, I am surprised a middle ground can't be found. A 5% variance in contract years may be a bit much, but the 75% variance the NHLPA has proposed is almost no change at all.

My suggestion:

A 50/50 split of HRR (like most of the other major sports are near). Transition aided by "make-whole" provision contribution of 300M by owners.

10 year term- either side can opt out after 8 years. No one wants to do this again in a few years.

5 year contract maximum. Teams re-signing their own players can go to 7 years. Contract length can be increased to 8 years, but player needs to contribute to the costs of insuring the contract against injury or forced retirement.

A 20% maximum in the dollar values per year. No more 12M to 1M drops over the life of the deal.

Play hockey.

Ron C. is online now  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:13 PM
  #16
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
As for the "who does the 5 year term hurt" argument, IMO it hurts the star players much more than the mid tier guys. The PA is just saying that it will kill the middle class as a PR stunt.

No team is going to pay someone 10M+ a season and kill their depth, let alone 3-5 guys 8M+. This isn't the NBA where 2-3 guys can make you a great team, you need depth to compete in the NHL.

By not being able to circumvent the cap, high end players will have to take much less salary than what they're getting right now. TBH, there isn't enough cap space to fit all these guys on circumvention deals to go around.
If I was the NHL, I'd lower the max salary to 15% of the cap from 20% and then say "There, that helps your middle class, no?"

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:23 PM
  #17
RedWingsNow*
SaskatoonDeathSquad
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
If I was the NHL, I'd lower the max salary to 15% of the cap from 20% and then say "There, that helps your middle class, no?"
Sp 3 guys get big money instead of 2.
Not a huge difference

RedWingsNow* is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:24 PM
  #18
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.
Again, the same can be said of the pro-player side. At least 80% of the players are unaffected by the 5-year limit. Why is this such hard point for the NHLPA?

The only answer can be is that a small minority of players still want long term contracts as a way to allow cap circumvention.

I am not buying Fehr's rhetoric on it hurting the "middle class" players.

KINGS17 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:29 PM
  #19
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,881
vCash: 500
If the NHLPA accepts the leagues variance rules, and stops trying to create more avenues for extra $$ outside of the 50/50 split (compliance buyouts, escrow limits...transition issues already addressed by make whole), I can see the league agreeing to 8 year contracts (or at least 6 and 8, or 7 for all). But they better do it fast if they want all $300 million make whole money.

PensFanSince1989 is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 05:53 PM
  #20
ottawah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bob View Post
I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.
Its far more than that. Monetary issue dealing with limited escrow is huge.

ottawah is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:08 PM
  #21
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,343
vCash: 50
Related to the business side of the lockout;

Why has the NHL not officially cancelled additional games, even though its virtually guaranteed?

Games are officially cancelled until Dec.14th, but there is no possible way players and the NHL business machine can be ready-to-go by next Saturday.

I assumed that local arenas needed more time for booking events, etc.

mzappa is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 06:11 PM
  #22
octopi
Registered User
 
octopi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 30,965
vCash: 500
I've suggested it before, but how about allow longer contracts, just limit it to only two allowed per team. Either that, or tie it to salary amounts. 2 contracts any amount up to 8 years term. Any contract under 3 mil/year, up to 8 years term. No more than that.

octopi is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 07:36 PM
  #23
The Bob Cole
Ohhhh Baby.
 
The Bob Cole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Centre Ice
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
The Franchise tag is not an example of an exception though. Its basically the same thing as a team option. A real exception would be like something in the NBA where players can sign for more money with their current team than they can on the open market.
The franchise tag can only be applied to one designated player. It was a viable comparison.

NBA one is too.

The Bob Cole is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:21 PM
  #24
Falconone
Registered User
 
Falconone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Suburb of Boston MA
Country: United States
Posts: 219
vCash: 500
Contract issues

I have long held that the major sticking points would be/ were the contract issues. And here we are with the most promising progress to date in talks falling apart because of player contracting rights.

If the posts above are to be taken at face value, so that the remaining issues are; length of the CBA, max contract lengths and cap of 5% of contract value from year to year of a contract.

It woould seem to me that it could be solved by a bit of compromise from both parties.

On length of CBA 10 yrs may benefit both parties so NHLPA should concede this point

On a cap of 5% of contract value from year to year, the NHLPA should also concede

But of length of contract limits the NHL owners should agree to an 8 yr max as the NHLPA has offered.


Bettman may believe that 'trust' isn't an issue but for the PA the nature of his initial positions and the figurative stamping of his feet in a fit of pique over the PA offering proposals/changes doesn't help what he calls extremely difficult negotiations.

What I think most observers believed was a situation where the two sides were close to a deal, to have Bettman say it's a "take it or leave it", "everything is off the table now" position just makes it more than frustrating.

I would think that both sides could and should have kept talking. There would have been a deal around the three issues outlined by other posters (summarized above) in some fashion, perhaps not too dissimilar to what I suggest.

For Bettman to offer his 'displeasure' at what the union did in wanting those changes smacks of a pettulance and an arrogance that has been pervasive in this whole sordid affair. This type of behavior on Bettman's part only confirms for the PA that he's not to be trusted.

If he really cares/cared about the fans and 'the game' he would have said that the parties need to continue talking and resolve the differences between themselves as they had been doing and then stepped out of the room.

What I suspect happened, was that in doing what he referred to as 'what you have to do to sell things internally', backfired on him. He may have told the owners that the real guts of their problems could be solved by getting a 10 yr CBA, 5% limits on contract salary from year to year and a 5 yr limit on contract length. When someone (probably Jacobs LOL) questioned if Gary thought they could get a deal with those provisions, Gary said "YES"! When it didn't happen, Bettman looked bad.

Unfortunately, as he's failed to learn, Fehr is his superior in these negotiations and Bettman got caught by the PA wanting to continue to negotiate these matters.

Hence the song and dance show Bettman and Daly put on in the press conference.

It's a shame. Maybe cooler heads will pervail and something will get done.

If not, a "Disclaimer" is next (especially if the owners cancel the season) and despite what Bettman said, there's more than ample evidence (a lot of it has been linked to on this site) which shows clearly where this will lead to in US courts. Most likely not positive for the NHL owners.

Once you get matters such as these out of the area of Labor Law and into Anti Trust law, the likelihood of ownership prevailing in a courtroom is not very good. This isn't my opinion here, it is the opinion of very esteemed lawyers and law professors who have expertise in this specific area of the law. Follow the links posted elsewhere on this site if you want.

And the Anti Trust Laws carry teeth. A trebling of damages for every count. 720 players could make for at least 720 counts. Not where the NHL wants to be or the players for that matter. But in a court room dealing with anti trust damages $$ will suffice and the NHL would have better odds of succes betting on black in Las Vegas.

But hey this is just my opinion, everyone has one.

F1

Falconone is offline  
Old
12-08-2012, 09:31 PM
  #25
HockeyShack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 338
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzappa View Post
Related to the business side of the lockout;

Why has the NHL not officially cancelled additional games, even though its virtually guaranteed?

Games are officially cancelled until Dec.14th, but there is no possible way players and the NHL business machine can be ready-to-go by next Saturday.

I assumed that local arenas needed more time for booking events, etc.
If no deal by Monday, I bet they cancel them for the rest of December then.


Quote:
but player needs to contribute to the costs of insuring the contract against injury or forced retirement.
I believe the owners can't purchase insurance, so the whole salary is picked up by the owners. In another thread someone mentioned they can't even insure Crosby (May be why he isn't playing in Europe).

HockeyShack 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 09:26 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.