HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

NHL Lockout XXVIII: Don't worry about the lockout. Let me worry about blank.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 12:15 PM
  #451
Do Make Say Think
Soul & Onward
 
Do Make Say Think's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 17,325
vCash: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
First of all, the owners want a 5 year restriction with an exception of 7 years for any player RE-signing with the same team that holds their rights. So, nothing precludes Seguin from signing for 7, nor management from offering him 7.

And, to be honest, it's worrisome when we're this deep into the discussions and fans who are passionately taking a stand and posting with high frequency still don't even have these kinds of details figured out. You can't really accurately contribute to the conversation if you don't even have a full understanding of the facts, and the spread of disinformation and misinformation has been a plague throughout this entire fiasco, both in the arguments here at HF and in the twitter world. Knowing the facts is really a precursor to have an argument to stand by in the first place.
It's much easier to rail against Bettman if you don't inform yourself about the process and what has been offered so far.

Do Make Say Think is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:15 PM
  #452
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,045
vCash: 500
Does anyone have a firm grasp on what the current difference are between the NHL & PA on contract length and variance?

I think the NHL is looking strictly for 5 years (7 years for teams resigning FAs) with 5% variance.

Does anyone know what PA's current position on that is?

Thanks

FanSince2014 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:17 PM
  #453
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
Assuming Dreger is correct about the league's 'take it or leave it but we can actually negotiate off of that' offer, perhaps 7 year deal isn't a problem. It's clear that the league wants to include something in the way of contracts to give home teams some sort of advantage in resigning their players. Is that point something that they will lose an entire season over? I don't know. However, the league has already put the notion of a 7 year max length on the table (the advantage to home teams for their players).

Again, assuming that Dreger's tweet has some merit (and he seems pretty plugged in with NHL sources), perhaps the NHL's current take it or leave it is a way for the PA to stop beating around the bush and start negotiating off the league's framework. For example, the league is trying to close as many loopholes with the contracts and back diving, etc. The PA puts a proposal on the table that on the surface agrees to that principle but their solution is to find other loopholes to manipulate to create the same problem the league wants to eliminate. Of course that isn't going to fly with the league. League wants a 5% variance (or more realistically, they may not mind a higher variance but they don't want it to be too high) so the PA's solution? How about we apply no variance to contracts that are 5 years or shorter but in years 6-8, we can then apply a variance of a maximum of 75% from year 1 to the last year of contract. The league says, we want to increase our share and reduce our costs outside the system. What is the PA's solution? Oh, how about we cap escrow and introduce amnesty buyouts that all come out of the league's end (hence outside the system).

Perhaps there is flexibility in contract length (maximum of 7) and variance (5 or higher - and this is where you can give the home team the advantage with a greater variance to work with). I think it's possible that the league's line in the sand isn't actually the contents of their offer but rather the structure of their offer itself. The contents can probably be negotiated if the PA chooses to do so.
There you go! You can act for the owners and I'll be on for the players and we'll sign the deal this afternoon. My $500,000 bill will be sent to the NHLPA this afternoon.
Now if only we could figure out some way to bridge the gap between a 10 year CBA wanted by the NHL and an 8 year CBA wanted by the PA. That's going to be a tough nut to crack that we're each going to need about 10 lawyers to resolve. If only there was a simple solution.......

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:19 PM
  #454
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
Ours!
 
Marc the Habs Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Longueuil
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,956
vCash: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
Does anyone have a firm grasp on what the current difference are between the NHL & PA on contract length and variance?

I think the NHL is looking strictly for 5 years (7 years for teams resigning FAs) with 5% variance.

Does anyone know what PA's current position on that is?

Thanks
PA offered 8 years.

https://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/sta...89289345482752

Renaud Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS
Still no decision on a possible meeting between the NHL and the NHLPA today. Same thing on the mediation side.

What's the rush?

Marc the Habs Fan is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:20 PM
  #455
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Bettman and Daly screamed and yelled about getting a proposal from the players in writing. Any proposal. They get a 2nd proposal in 3 weeks and Bettman won't even acknowledge it. A proposal which is talking his language. No guaranteed fixed amount. A straight %. Long term CBA. Contract limits. Bettman is playing hard to get and its his way or no way.
They also put in writing reduced escrow amounts (which is the equivalent to raising their % of HRR for the first few years on top of "make-whole") which guarantees a min fixed amount.

As to long term CBA, the NHLPA proposal could be up after just six years.

Now to contract limits... far from what the owners want.

As to the owners, I believe they're not willing to add more to the table. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. It's their money, why should they spend more than what the max they can afford? As to the players, they have the right to stay at home or play in crappy leagues if that's what they'd rather do.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:22 PM
  #456
rojac
HFBoards Sponsor
 
rojac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Waterloo, ON
Posts: 6,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanSince2012 View Post
Does anyone have a firm grasp on what the current difference are between the NHL & PA on contract length and variance?

I think the NHL is looking strictly for 5 years (7 years for teams resigning FAs) with 5% variance.

Does anyone know what PA's current position on that is?

Thanks
You have the NHL's position right. I believe the NHLPA proposed a 8 year limit with the condition that no year could be less than 25% of the highest year. I'm not sure if the restrictions on contract values from the 2005 CBA would also apply to the NHLPA proposal.

rojac is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:23 PM
  #457
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
They also put in writing reduced escrow amounts (which is the equivalent to raising their % of HRR for the first few years on top of "make-whole") which guarantees a min fixed amount.

As to long term CBA, the NHLPA proposal could be up after just six years.

Now to contract limits... far from what the owners want.

As to the owners, I believe they're not willing to add more to the table. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. It's their money, why should they spend more than what the max they can afford? As to the players, they have the right to stay at home or play in crappy leagues if that's what they'd rather do.
And the owners have the right to cancel the season over easily solvable issues. Both sides have that right. Seems like a dumb move by successful billionaire businessmen to throw away millions of dollars as a matter of ego even if they won't be forced to eat Kraft dinner to get by. Most successful business people I know act rationally but maybe these 30 guys are different.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:24 PM
  #458
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieAVS View Post
You cant see why anyone isnt against this??

Im all for a 5 year term on contracts. Why? Because it lends to the possibility of increased player movement with regards to both trades, and free agency.

Player movement, IMO, is one of the most unspoken, but exciting, part in all sports.

Theres a reason why the trade deadline and july 1st are the busiest days in the NHL. Theyve creating day-long tv shows to monitor the events.

Why not look at this from not a pro-owner and not a pro-pa person, and look at this merely as a FAN. Player movement and the increased possiblity of player movement is something almost all fans. Yes, most fans love their players and would hate to see them move, but its easy to forget them when theres new blood being injected into your team.

The busiest section of HF is the trade rumors tab. Its the most agreed-upon principle that player movement increases talk, and buzz, and excitement AND most importantly, the possibility of new fans becoming part of the NHL because of all the talk and buzz.

Yeah, its actually quite easy for me to see how a 5 year term is a good idea.
Oh sure, from an entertainment standpoint I agree 100%. I'd love 5 year limits. But we know the owners aren't insisting on this for our benefit.

I simply fail to see why the owners are fighting this one so hard. Trade this one for the longer CBA and lower variance. The variance helps solve the term problem anyway.

bp13 is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:24 PM
  #459
Blueline Bomber
Expectations - high
 
Blueline Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CpatainCanuck View Post
Umm...yeah, if Bettman gives in to the NHLPAs demands the lockout will end.

Apparently the alternative has not been considered by this fellow: that the NHLPA gives in to the nhl's demands.
Bettman controls all the cards, because even if the NHLPA gives into the NHL's demands (which again, they've done a lot of already), Bettman could choose to put the screws on the NHLPA on another issue and we could start this whole process over again.

Blueline Bomber is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:25 PM
  #460
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rojac View Post
You have the NHL's position right. I believe the NHLPA proposed a 8 year limit with the condition that no year could be less than 25% of the highest year. I'm not sure if the restrictions on contract values from the 2005 CBA would also apply to the NHLPA proposal.
Partially correct, 5years and under there is no variance requirement. They also added compliance buy outs and escrow caps that the owners would have to pay for.

surixon is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:25 PM
  #461
Stats01
Registered User
 
Stats01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
And the owners have the right to cancel the season over easily solvable issues. Both sides have that right. Seems like a dumb move by successful billionaire businessmen to throw away millions of dollars as a matter of ego. But who knows starnegr things have happened.
Exactly, this is what bugs me about the players. They are acting like they're entitled to the millions they get paid when it's the complete opposite. They should count their lucky stars they are this fortunate to play a game for fame and fortune. The owners can do whatever they bloody feel like IMO.
It's their teams, their money, and they will do business the way they want to do business.

Stats01 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:26 PM
  #462
Ducks DVM
Moderator
There is no grunion
 
Ducks DVM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Long Beach, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
If you were a guy like Tyler Seguin and loved Boston, why should you be precluded from signing a 7 year deal? And if you were his GM, why should you be precluded from locking him up for 7 years?

The owners will tell you "because too many owners use those deals to sign mediocre players, then they end up losing money and coming to us for help." Does that sound like an explanation any parent would accept from their kid? Or any Econ professor would sign off on?

If the issue is that franchises mismanage contracts, then put in rules to allow teams to trade for cap space. Or allow teams to pay part of contracts in trade. You know, reasonable, free-market-type solutions that other leagues have implemented.
Under the proposed rules, Tyler can sign that contract, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The larger group of owners will also tell you that a small group of owners are throwing their money around and getting a competitive advantage they were never intended to have, with the net effect of damaging the investments of the other owners. I don't think any parent should accept "I did it because I can" as an excuse from their child, but that's the equivalent of what you're telling the responsible owners to do. I can't see how having a number of contracts where the player is no longer as good as their cap hit and are no longer insurable is good for the league.

Again - how are 5/7 contracts "screwing" the players?


Quote:
Originally Posted by marcel snapshot View Post
Not true. If long-term deals exceeding 5 years are stupid and destructive, then each club can and should decide on their own not to do them. They don't need a CBA provision to exercise judgment.

This is part of the problem with the NHL's whole negotiating stance -- they don't just want a substantial win, which they're already getting from 50/50 and make-not-quite-whole on existing contracts. They want an idiot-proof CBA, so they can be saved from their future stupidity. History shows there's no such thing - but Bettman continues to make the fans suffer on the cross of a CBA that will idiot-proof the clubs against their own poor judgment.
What you're proposing is simply the status quo. It "fixes" absolutely nothing. The majority of owners disagrees with you on contracts, and they want to do something about it. The inability to create an idiot-proof CBA is hardly a reason to not attempt to fix anything.


Last edited by Ducks DVM: 12-13-2012 at 12:35 PM.
Ducks DVM is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:26 PM
  #463
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Bettman controls all the cards, because even if the NHLPA gives into the NHL's demands (which again, they've done a lot of already), Bettman could choose to put the screws on the NHLPA on another issue and we could start this whole process over again.
Considering he already threw a tantrum and said that he pulled everything off of the table there is technically nothing that the PA can agree to now. The NHL doesn't even have an offer for them to accept.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:27 PM
  #464
swimmer77
Post Oates
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
So maybe get some mediators to mediate the current batch of mediators?

I think it's possible the NHL will not relent on those three core issues. I think it's possible they will not give a deadline date. So players........maybe the season could be called at any time. Bettman's already said nothing less than a 48 game schedule so maybe the NHLPA can figure out what that deadline is on their own - but I doubt it.

And I hope the NHLPA is paying the Fehr brothers by the minute. And when do the NHLPA players get their next stipend?

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:29 PM
  #465
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
And the owners have the right to cancel the season over easily solvable issues. Both sides have that right. Seems like a dumb move by successful billionaire businessmen to throw away millions of dollars as a matter of ego even if they won't be forced to eat Kraft dinner to get by. Most successful business people I know act rationally but maybe these 30 guys are different.
Depends... there's a point where you can't add more. Maybe you can afford a $1000 per month mortgage but couldn't afford a $1010 mortgage. In that case unfortunately for a mere $10 you can't sign on the dotted line.

Acting rationally would likely be to cancel the season right now, try to fill the arenas to the max to earn revenues and then next year to strike a deal where you won't even have to disburse "make whole" as it will only apply to a small minority of players. If you successfully break the union, then maybe you can even get an MLB like shared HRR at 57% owners and 43% players. Doing that would likely shoot up the value of your franchise by 25% so you'd be winning even though revenues are down and you missed some time. Sounds like good business.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:29 PM
  #466
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stats01 View Post
Exactly, this is what bugs me about the players. They are acting like they're entitled to the millions they get paid when it's the complete opposite. They should count their lucky stars they are this fortunate to play a game for fame and fortune. The owners can do whatever they bloody feel like IMO.
It's their teams, their money, and they will do business the way they want to do business.
Both sides should count themselves lucky that we fans pay such high prices to go to games and buy their merachandise. I don't see either side as being more entilted to anything than the other. Obviously you have a different view.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:29 PM
  #467
swimmer77
Post Oates
 
swimmer77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: in water
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,388
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanwest View Post
Considering he already threw a tantrum and said that he pulled everything off of the table there is technically nothing that the PA can agree to now. The NHL doesn't even have an offer for them to accept.
So somebody like Fehr cannot read between the lines? Like maybe work off of the October offer? Daly said the NHL is willing to listen to "new ideas" too.

swimmer77 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:30 PM
  #468
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 11,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPF24 View Post
First of all, the owners want a 5 year restriction with an exception of 7 years for any player RE-signing with the same team that holds their rights. So, nothing precludes Seguin from signing for 7, nor management from offering him 7.

And, to be honest, it's worrisome when we're this deep into the discussions and fans who are passionately taking a stand and posting with high frequency still don't even have these kinds of details figured out. You can't really accurately contribute to the conversation if you don't even have a full understanding of the facts, and the spread of disinformation and misinformation has been a plague throughout this entire fiasco, both in the arguments here at HF and in the twitter world. Knowing the facts is really a precursor to have an argument to stand by in the first place.
You're right, though that's a detail and I knew it. I simply picked a poor player example. But the spirit of my post remains the same. Seguin is young enough to sign a 10 year deal, and he ought to be able to do it.

I see this more principally though. I hate the idea of adding regulation into any marketplace, regardless of whether it's obviously not a free market. This contract limit issue is being pushed by owners to help them govern themselves. Big market profiteers like Jacobs don't want to increase revenue share much, or worse yet, bail out smaller teams who have no option but to guarantee long-term deals in order to match compete with offers from big-market teams.

I'll ask the same questions I posed before:

Why can't the owners allow teams to pay salary in trade? Or trade prospects ofr cap space? Why not opt for measures like this to help bail out teams rather than unilaterally impose regulation that adversely affects players?

bp13 is online now  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:32 PM
  #469
Qward
Moderator
Because! That's why!
 
Qward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Behind you, look out
Posts: 13,540
vCash: 265
Can someone explain to me why Campoli is part of these negotiations?

I have asked all the hockey experts and no one has answered me.

Qward is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:33 PM
  #470
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,859
vCash: 500
From: @RenLavoieRDS
Sent: Dec 13, 2012 1:32p

NHLPA should have another meeting this afternoon with the mediator.

sent via Twitter for BlackBerry®
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/RenLavoieRDS/stat...92629076807680

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:33 PM
  #471
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber View Post
Bettman controls all the cards, because even if the NHLPA gives into the NHL's demands (which again, they've done a lot of already), Bettman could choose to put the screws on the NHLPA on another issue and we could start this whole process over again.
And yet the NHL is willing to put into writing their offer for a vote. I think you've got it messed up. The NHLPA keeps on changing their demand, not the other way around.

SuperUnknown is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:33 PM
  #472
Kopistar
Registered User
 
Kopistar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,566
vCash: 500
Back when Fehr was negotiating against the MLB, he realized a few key things. A. Baseball owners make a lot of money ON baseball. B. It's a lot harder to book baseball stadiums for other venues (if there was a lockout).

Unfortunately he seems to have this same line of thinking against the NHL. Truth is, most NHL owners can easily survive if there is a lost season. PLUS hockey arenas are easily bookable for alternative events.

Reality is, the owners I feel want to play hockey, BUT if they HAVE to, they can afford to wait it out. I think Fehr needs to realize this asap otherwise this thing could go on for a long long time.

Kopistar is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:33 PM
  #473
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUnknown View Post
Depends... there's a point where you can't add more. Maybe you can afford a $1000 per month mortgage but couldn't afford a $1010 mortgage. In that case unfortunately for a mere $10 you can't sign on the dotted line.

Acting rationally would likely be to cancel the season right now, try to fill the arenas to the max to earn revenues and then next year to strike a deal where you won't even have to disburse "make whole" as it will only apply to a small minority of players. If you successfully break the union, then maybe you can even get an MLB like shared HRR at 57% owners and 43% players. Doing that would likely shoot up the value of your franchise by 25% so you'd be winning even though revenues are down and you missed some time. Sounds like good business.
I don't agree with that. Under the PA's last offer most teams will make good money this year. Acting rationally would be compromising on the last few issues and starting the season ASAP. That's why I'm optimistic we'll have a season. No rational person would risk the season over these few issues. 30 successful businessmen didn't get that way by letting emotions cloud their judgement. Whatever Bettman's personal views may be I'm confident that the owners will soon instruct him to strike the best deal possible and get the season started. We'll see.

vanwest is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:34 PM
  #474
Boltsfan2029
Registered User
 
Boltsfan2029's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In deleted threads
Country: United States
Posts: 6,287
vCash: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by WinterEmpire View Post
Bettman and the owners made that claim everyday time they were asked for 7 years until it was time to negotiate.
I'll have to take your word for it, I don't remember them ever saying that every team in the league was profitable (or doing OK or whatever the language was). Phoenix, Atlanta, Devils, etc., would disprove that pretty quickly.

Boltsfan2029 is offline  
Old
12-13-2012, 12:34 PM
  #475
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,569
vCash: 500
I was going to say I'm happy something is happening today but I'm not sure anything is really happeing

CerebralGenesis 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 06:56 AM.

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.