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.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2012, 02:12 PM
  #126
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Good night, a $60 Million cap? What the heck are they trying to do, make sure it's impossible to field a decent team? Good grief... Tell me current SPCs cap hits are at least going to go down with the cap... Perish the thought of all the teams that are above 60 million after this year that will be affected by this... For crying out loud! What a bunch of bull crap.
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:17 PM
  #127
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
Quote:
Other elements that would be new to the NHL: the creation of an "interview period" for unrestricted free agents, like the NBA, and the implementation of a weighted draft lottery expanded to all non-playoff teams.
I wouldn't mind seeing a weighted lottery of some fashion. Whether it's modeled on the NBA's or something different.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:20 PM
  #128
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.
"No contractual salary rollbacks" simply means that there will be no across-the-board reduction in dollar amounts stated on contracts. Owners will write checks to the players based on what amount is stated on their current contracts. That being said, those amounts will be subject to the escrow mechanism and effectively reduce the actual amount recieved by the players, at least until revenue growth reaches a certain level.

In 2005 there was a salary rollback in the tune of 24%. In other words, for every year remaining on Player X's contract, the stated salary amount was reduced by 24%, then the rest subject to escrow.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:21 PM
  #129
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
$3.3 billion x 50%/30 teams = $55 million max salary cap. Add 10% growth, and you're at $60 million. The "no contractual salary roll backs" clause may play into this somehow. I'm awaiting clarification on what that really means.
No contractual roll backs refers to the fact players contracts will remain unchanged unlike the last CBA where the actual dollar value of the contract was reduced.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:23 PM
  #130
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Had to read that twice - correct me if I'm misinterpreting - are you suggesting that perhaps the reason Fehr took this giant step downwards from MLB is because there might be an historic/legacy opportunity re: decertification?

If I've read you right, I'm inclined to agree.
Well it can't be just to make a deal, right? Anyone could do that. Paul Kelly could've done that.

But a fight against a league and ownership group that cancelled a season to get the one thing Fehr dislikes the most? Getting hired by a PA that expressly didn't want a cap in either 94-95, or 04-05?

The NHL may not be a popular league, but it is a professional one. If we're talking about some historic opportunity in terms of labor issues, is there a better league to try it out than in this one? Maybe Fehr agrees to a deal that involves a cap, but it is Donald Fehr we're talking about.

That's just been my question since Fehr took the PA job. Why? Why basically come out of retirement for the NHLPA job? What's in it for Donald Fehr? A job for his brother? Is it just to minimize losses, or is it something else? At least we're yet another day closer to finding that out.

KingsFan7824 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:23 PM
  #131
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I wouldn't mind seeing a weighted lottery of some fashion. Whether it's modeled on the NBA's or something different.
Would be nice instead of Edmonton getting the number one overall pick every year.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:24 PM
  #132
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
The PA's last counter offer to the owners had around 54-55 percent of the revenue going to the players even though the owners made it clear that 50/50 was the only split they are willing to agree to. So why would anyone think that the PA lead by Fehr will not again counter with a revenue split above 50/50?
I fully expect that is what Fehr would intend to do, it is also why the NHL leaked the major details of what they proposed and did so before Fehr would have had time to go through the proposal and relay the contents to the membership. The NHL is providing the details directly to the PA membership in a far more detailed form compared to the past 4 or 5 points of interest in order for the membership to provide internal pressure on leadership. Many seem to be interpreting this as some sort of panic move on the part of the league. I'm interpreting it like Millard seems to be saying...the NHL is putting forth a detailed and essentially complete proposal from which they will really only accept changes that don't go towards the fundamentals of the system to any significant degree (50/50 share, significant contract restrictions). Move the little things around. Ask for a mint on your pillow every night or to be tucked in by the trainer but stop asking for more than 50% and let's stop pretending that a contract less than 8 years is some sort of horrible cross to bear.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:26 PM
  #133
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Again, that is not what was said at the time. At the time, it was stated the PA had been crushed, the owners got what they wanted, and players would never make what they gave up during the lockout.

Wrong on all accounts.

I suspect the vast majority of similar statements being expressed around here this time around will also turn out be completely wrong.
They didn't make that up. A very select few might have. But when you base it off of the average salary, the average player and the average career length, you come up short. Now I'm not sure what the average salary was yearly for each of the 7 years of the last CBA. But it was 1.4 (down from 1.7) at the start, and is 2.4 now we'll say it grew by 143k a year, and that the player renegotiated their contract 4 times for 1 year in length (5 years is the average, and they lost a yr from the lockout).

Year 1 - Lockout - lost 1.4m
Year 2 - earned 1.4m
Year 3 - earned 1.54m
Year 4 - earned 1.68m
Year 5 - earned 1.82m

So where did the average player make up that money during their career? Now those that were getting peanuts before, and now got the league minimum (and thus raises), did better. But those who earned 'big raises' would have received those regardless, so it's hard to say that they made up what they lost.

Please show me 3 players that made up what they lost.

__________________
"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 offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:26 PM
  #134
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
There is no need to go to court to "go after the cap". The union decertifying would take care of the cap. It's illegal outside a CBA. IF there's no union theres no CBA, no Cap, no draft, no guaranteed contracts, no minimum contract etc etc etc.
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:29 PM
  #135
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Interesting offer from the owners. Daily says, that's a hill we will die on. They then prpose to change exactly that, from 5 to 6 years. Maybe that's all the players need to pat themselves on the back about a victory they've acheived? Knowing how this has played out thus far, they'll counter with another proposal that only reaches 50-50 based on certain economic events happening, which would never be acceptable to the owners. .
Yet they still haven't gone past 7 years, nor have they made major changes to the variance.

Something that surprised me is that it looks like they've adopted (in part or in whole) the PA's buyout request.

2. Additional restrictions on Club "buy-out" rights of Player contracts;

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:30 PM
  #136
santiclaws
Registered User
 
santiclaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
I think that's going to be a hell of a tough sell in court.

santiclaws is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:33 PM
  #137
I Am Score*
---BradD---
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,666
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Yet they still haven't gone past 7 years, nor have they made major changes to the variance.

Something that surprised me is that it looks like they've adopted (in part or in whole) the PA's buyout request.

2. Additional restrictions on Club "buy-out" rights of Player contracts;
7 year max contract length would end the lockout, guaranteed.

I Am Score* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:34 PM
  #138
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
Interesting. Hadn't heard that. I did hear one lawyer saying it would probably be legal if the NHL re-organized itself in a model such as the MLS. The MLS is a single company and team "owners" are shareholders in MLS.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:37 PM
  #139
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
There is no way to know one way or the other until the final deal is done.
Just look at the last CBA. The average player didn't win from losing a season.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:38 PM
  #140
Whileee
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 8,973
vCash: 500
If the NHLPA formally responds, to this offer, or even counters with an offer of their own, doesn't at make the vote to authorize a "disclaimer of interest" pretty much irrelevant. It would be a farce for the NHLPA to continue bargaining after the authorization vote, and then disclaim interest if they can't come to an agreement. I think that the NHLPA and players need to decide now whether they want to ignore the offer and have the NHLPA disclaim interest, or go ahead with collective bargaining.

Whileee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:38 PM
  #141
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,847
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Interesting. Hadn't heard that. I did hear one lawyer saying it would probably be legal if the NHL re-organized itself in a model such as the MLS. The MLS is a single company and team "owners" are shareholders in MLS.
I'd have to go digging to find the original link. It was a legal summary of decertification possibilities from about a month ago.

I'm pretty certain the Justice department would intervene if the NHL tried to reorganize under the MLS model.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:39 PM
  #142
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
Go Leafs Go
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,975
vCash: 500
I think it's safe to say if the NHLPA doesn't accept this offer then the NHL might as well cancel the remainder of the season.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:39 PM
  #143
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,459
vCash: 500
What does this mean:

Quote:
- Elimination of NHLPA "Guarantee" of Escrow shortfall and increased NHLPA discretion to determine in-season Escrow Rates.

Ari91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:41 PM
  #144
i am dave
Registered User
 
i am dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Corner of 1st & 1st
Country: United States
Posts: 2,182
vCash: 500
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything at all about keeping or modifying (or removing) the "35+ rule." That's one I'd like to see changed.

i am dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:42 PM
  #145
mzappa
Jets fans in space
 
mzappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,933
vCash: 1000
as posted in the main Lockout thread:

Ten-day deadline according to the Globe and Mail, season would start Jan.19th:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle6764756/

mzappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:44 PM
  #146
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Actually some legal scholars have opined that a cap may still be legal without a union/CBA. The league would have to justify that the result of the cap is pro-competitive, promoting parity and thus league interest/growth that outweighs potential labor restrictions.
You would think that it wouldn't be that hard when they can point to record growth and revenues almost each of the 7 years with the cap in place.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:46 PM
  #147
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
"No contractual salary rollbacks" simply means that there will be no across-the-board reduction in dollar amounts stated on contracts. Owners will write checks to the players based on what amount is stated on their current contracts. That being said, those amounts will be subject to the escrow mechanism and effectively reduce the actual amount recieved by the players, at least until revenue growth reaches a certain level.

In 2005 there was a salary rollback in the tune of 24%. In other words, for every year remaining on Player X's contract, the stated salary amount was reduced by 24%, then the rest subject to escrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
No contractual roll backs refers to the fact players contracts will remain unchanged unlike the last CBA where the actual dollar value of the contract was reduced.
Thanks, gents.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:46 PM
  #148
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,112
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
I'd have to go digging to find the original link. It was a legal summary of decertification possibilities from about a month ago.
I remember reading that as well. Can't remember where though.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:48 PM
  #149
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,413
vCash: 500
Players can DOI whenever they want but that itself has no effect as NHL already filed a court case against them claiming it's nothing but a negotiating tactic.

A real decertification of union would be much more effective but takes so many months that there wouldn't be a season.

PA's DOI is an empty threat.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:50 PM
  #150
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
I think it's safe to say if the NHLPA doesn't accept this offer then the NHL might as well cancel the remainder of the season.
Nah, there is still time for the PA to offer a counter-proposal to this.

But it'll be interesting to see how the courts (if it goes that way) view a counterproposal from a union that voted to allow their leaders to diclaim interest.

I could be wrong, but this offer from the owners could be a multi-pronged method of a) showing good faith in continuing to negotiate, b) put pressure on the union to act, c) draw the union into a legal pickle jar.

Very interesting stuff.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 12:11 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.