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

CBA News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-04-2012, 05:43 PM
  #51
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
Revenue was only $2.9b last year. Cap could be going up dramatically during the summer prior to the new CBA being finalized.

How about Parise and Sutter?


http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559630
Only a maniac will blow up a season with this kind of annual growth. The NHL will try to capitalize on the recent trend where the players slice of the pie shrinks to that 50% range. The PA sits at what, 57% right now?

Bank on Bettman and the BOG testing the resolve of the PA. They've splintered in the face of pretty much every adversity, they had a revolving door at the leader's seat since the last CBA. Fehr is tough, but it will come down to the players sticking together. Bettman will bluff, but ultimately if everyone is reasonable and patient a deal should be made before camp.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:02 PM
  #52
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Only a maniac will blow up a season with this kind of annual growth. The NHL will try to capitalize on the recent trend where the players slice of the pie shrinks to that 50% range. The PA sits at what, 57% right now?

Bank on Bettman and the BOG testing the resolve of the PA. They've splintered in the face of pretty much every adversity, they had a revolving door at the leader's seat since the last CBA. Fehr is tough, but it will come down to the players sticking together. Bettman will bluff, but ultimately if everyone is reasonable and patient a deal should be made before camp.
It's interesting, but freezing the cap at 64.3m (a 56.3m midpoint) means that players will be getting a 52.8% share in the revenue next year at revenues of $3.2b (56.3x30/3200)

I fail to see how this isn't a reasonable solution. Keep it frozen until it hits the 50% mark.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-04-2012, 09:59 PM
  #53
Silence Of The Plams
Zemgod
 
Silence Of The Plams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lancaster, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 18,195
vCash: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Only a maniac will blow up a season with this kind of annual growth. The NHL will try to capitalize on the recent trend where the players slice of the pie shrinks to that 50% range. The PA sits at what, 57% right now?

Bank on Bettman and the BOG testing the resolve of the PA. They've splintered in the face of pretty much every adversity, they had a revolving door at the leader's seat since the last CBA. Fehr is tough, but it will come down to the players sticking together. Bettman will bluff, but ultimately if everyone is reasonable and patient a deal should be made before camp.
It better, I don't want another lockout >

Silence Of The Plams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 03:42 AM
  #54
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,398
vCash: 500
The sport really can't afford another lockout. They've worked so hard promoting it and trying to get it back to respectability. If there is a lockout it better be very short

RGY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 09:55 AM
  #55
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,564
vCash: 500
This is the Rangers/Tortorella Effect...

1994-Rangers win Cup -> Lockout
2004-Tortorella's Lightning win Cup -> Lockout
2012-?...

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 10:40 AM
  #56
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Bettman said revenue will be $3.2B this season. Gary is always conservative when giving numbers. The Rangers and a few more big US markets go deep into the playoffs,it will be more than $3.2B. Dolan is charging college tuition for playoffs tickets. The cap will go down and set a reasonable number OR the cap will remain status quo for another 2 years. If they set the 12-13 cap at $60M after a labor agreement is done,that's not going to be a hardship. The Rangers aren't spending $60M this season if you count the Drury money. Wolski and Avery took up a big chunk and they hardly played. If they can do something about 2nd contracts which is the plan,then the Rangers will be fine. A player coming of the entry level money shouldn't be getting paid like a group III. Contract limit restrictions. Lengthen the entry level years.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 09:49 PM
  #57
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
we'll see if hank elaborates tomorrow...

Henrik Lundqvist ‏ @HLundqvist30
Just finished an interesting dinner with a few teammates and Donald Fehr, our #NHLPA leader. Talked about our #future...

Dave Lozo ‏ @DaveLozo
I now look forward to Rangers practice tomorrow morning. I sure hope @HLundqvist30 is feeling talkative about the #future...

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 10:30 PM
  #58
Krams
what a time
 
Krams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Capital District
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
I can't go another year without hockey :/

Krams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 10:32 PM
  #59
Ail
k.
 
Ail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Mysidia
Country: United States
Posts: 17,839
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissFreakinWatch View Post
I can't go another year without hockey :/
Yeah, I just got my fiancee big into the Rangers and hockey, and I don't think we'll make it to a regular season or playoff game this year. I really want her first hockey game to be a Rangers game, it would suck to wait that long.

__________________

Disintegrated MCL
rip
Ail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 10:42 PM
  #60
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissFreakinWatch View Post
I can't go another year without hockey :/
yeah didn't mind as much last time cause we sucked lol

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-05-2012, 11:05 PM
  #61
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingWantsCup View Post
A rollback must mean cap hits are reduced and not salaries, but that in itself is like cap-circumvention... I mean I can see why the players and owners would be for that but that kinda makes the point of a cap look dumb, no? I sure as hell would be for that though.

If they're talking about cutting salaries this isn't gonna be pretty. Big yes to years and stricter money limits. Though. SiriusXM was discussing how doing so actually benefits well over 90% of players, you know, the ones that aren't super stars.
Of course it means real money.
Peter Forsberg was rolled back from 11 mill to 5.5 mill in real money during the last negotiation.
What on earth would be the point to just set back the cap hit,and the salarys remain the same?
That could have worked in NHL 12 or something else fantasy-ish

fredrikstad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 05:25 AM
  #62
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Only a maniac will blow up a season with this kind of annual growth. The NHL will try to capitalize on the recent trend where the players slice of the pie shrinks to that 50% range. The PA sits at what, 57% right now?
Yeah, and things are very diffrent now than compared to the summer of 04'. i) Many orgs make a ton of money. ii) Many orgs are on the verge of disaster..

Remember that back then, the rich clubs spent their money and the poor clubs spent alot more than what they had. Basically "everyone" lost money, except maybe a few who made some but they had a ton to gain at the same time from a hard cap.

The big owners make a helluva lot of money nowadays. A helluva lot of money.

What does Bettman tell the 5-10 most profitable owners this summer if he plans to smack the PA around??? I have yet to see anyone give a reasonable answer to that. He'll call up Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment and say "Hey, I know you dudes will loose 100+m but I wanna save PHX so tough luck"?

And the game is growing now and maybe orgs are making more and more money each year. Another lockout is of course a big blow for the entire league. A very big blow.

Fehr of course knows this and thats why he took the job.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 07:44 AM
  #63
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It's interesting, but freezing the cap at 64.3m (a 56.3m midpoint) means that players will be getting a 52.8% share in the revenue next year at revenues of $3.2b (56.3x30/3200)

I fail to see how this isn't a reasonable solution. Keep it frozen until it hits the 50% mark.
Interesting math. It's not unreasonable but I'm just not seeing a reason for the cap to freeze or for the players share to come down.

Look, I don't have a stake in either side except for them to come to a deal so I can watch games. But the league put a gun to the players' heads and forced them to sign the last CBA. And like clockwork, teams are crying about the last contract like they always do. I really don't care that the cap floor is too high, that's another Bettman/BOG created problem... they wanted these markets that struggle to earn and expanded the league to get there. It always comes down to the players fixing the owners' problems.

From a player's perspective, why help here? What do the players get in return for freezing the cap or capping 1st and 2nd contracts? The players never get anything for free. Olympics? Which helps the league by the way.

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 10:24 AM
  #64
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,316
vCash: 500
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n15786462/

Mara could have said screw you to the smaller markets. He could have pocketed that extra cash rather than share it. But he understood that the health of the league and the growth of the sport was more important than putting a few extra bucks in his pocket. That money was an investment and the NFL has grown exponentially and his family has gotten a massive return on that investment. He didn't lose money by sharing revenue, he made money by growing the sport.

The players may need to take a lower percentage, the same as the NFL and NBA players have, but there needs to be more profit sharing as well. Both sides need to give to ensure the future stability of the league and the teams within it.

Whatever the players give up, they are going to get it back. Whatever the owners give up, they are going to get it back. Why? Because the sport will continue to grow. The cap started at 39 million. This year it's 64.3 million. That's 60% growth in 7 years.

Unfortunately, the big market teams are driving that growth and the small market teams can't keep up. The formula needs to change. Reduce the player percentage. Institute more revenue sharing. And change the cap to be based on the revenue of the middle 10 teams.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 12:52 PM
  #65
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,011
vCash: 500
This is really amusing. Bettman said that he needed to have "cost certainty" last time. The owners basically got everything that they wanted. Now it does not work, so the players will be required to give back salary and their cut of the revenues again? Meanwhile, it costs a small fortune to take a family to the Garden. And it will cost a lot more next year. The big market teams will make out even better in this scenario while the league props up franchises like New Jersey and Phoenix. Unreal.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 01:39 PM
  #66
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
This is really amusing. Bettman said that he needed to have "cost certainty" last time. The owners basically got everything that they wanted. Now it does not work, so the players will be required to give back salary and their cut of the revenues again? Meanwhile, it costs a small fortune to take a family to the Garden. And it will cost a lot more next year. The big market teams will make out even better in this scenario while the league props up franchises like New Jersey and Phoenix. Unreal.
Please note that the last time Bettman mentioned "saving the small org's" and Canadian media picked that up and ran with it 24/7/365.

It's ridiculous to think that Bettman would care more about a small five org's than the majority of teams. Ridiculous.

Facts are that many org's (20?) stands to loose a great deal from a lockout. That was NOT the case 8 years ago.

Sure, they may test the PA and sure se may loose time, but believe me when I say that thing are different this time around.
The last time it took a lockout too get people on the same page.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-06-2012, 06:28 PM
  #67
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Interesting math. It's not unreasonable but I'm just not seeing a reason for the cap to freeze or for the players share to come down.

Look, I don't have a stake in either side except for them to come to a deal so I can watch games. But the league put a gun to the players' heads and forced them to sign the last CBA. And like clockwork, teams are crying about the last contract like they always do. I really don't care that the cap floor is too high, that's another Bettman/BOG created problem... they wanted these markets that struggle to earn and expanded the league to get there. It always comes down to the players fixing the owners' problems.

From a player's perspective, why help here? What do the players get in return for freezing the cap or capping 1st and 2nd contracts? The players never get anything for free. Olympics? Which helps the league by the way.
The players don't want a lockout either though. If the owners say they want to reduce the player's share of revenue and the players say they don't want to give anything up... well, what then? There's plenty of reasons for the players to be okay with a freeze.

Of course it's always about the players fixing the owners' problems. They have the largest, most negotiable share of what the owners revenue. And it is their money. That's one reason why the players agree to the freeze. The ownership can decide just not to pay them for a while. Both sides have to understand that they are partners with differing interests, rather than opponents.

Owners would argue that, while the level of cost certainty didn't work perfectly in the current CBA, it was a step in the right direction. From what I can tell, they'd be right. They want to continue along in that direction. That's perfectly fine... and the players should want to be right there with them without taking a real step backwards. So you ask what the players would get for a freeze? How about all of the money on the contracts they've signed? Because the owners would ask for a rollback in the other likely scenario.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:12 PM
  #68
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
GM's meeting next week

The GM's want some answers on how they will run their teams until a new CBA is completed

Quote:
"I intend to give a brief overview of where we are in the collective bargaining process and obviously we’ll try the best we can to answer whatever questions the managers might have," Bill Daly, the NHL’s Deputy Commissioner, told ESPN.com Thursday.

I wrote a few weeks ago about what especially will be of concern to the GMs in the strange summer that could be at hand. In late June, the league will need to introduce an updated salary cap number (both upper limit and lower limit) in order to set up the opening of free agency on July 1, as per the terms of the current CBA. Based on expanding league revenues, the $64.3-million upper limit for the cap is expected to go up yet again, perhaps as high as $69 million. The problem, of course, is that it’s a cap number that is simply temporary for the summer before the new CBA brings in new financial parameters. And if the owners and league have their way, there will be a lower salary cap for next season.

So, GMs face the bizarre scenario where they get handed a higher salary cap for July and August with the knowledge that it likely will be lower when the puck drops next season. So how much should they spend this summer? Hence, they’ll have questions for the league in the meetings next week
http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ls-uncertainty

The cap is not coming close to $69M in the next CBA. No team is spending close to that amount this summer unless they have 2 or 3 players to compliance buyout when the CBA is completed. Summer cap of $75.9M. The NHL has to give their teams a number as to where the cap will be set. I am sure Bettman and Daly have a specific number in mind. The PA accepts 50% and some other system changes,where will be the cap be set?

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:24 PM
  #69
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,138
vCash: 500
Henke had dinner with Fehr the other night. Tweeted about it.

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:32 PM
  #70
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Henke had dinner with Fehr the other night. Tweeted about it.
I saw that. Fehr needs to get off his butt and start talking to Bettman about getting a new CBA done. They haven't had one negotiating session yet. There is a lot of work to be done in the next 6 months.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:32 PM
  #71
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,316
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
GM's meeting next week

The GM's want some answers on how they will run their teams until a new CBA is completed



http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ls-uncertainty

The cap is not coming close to $69M in the next CBA. No team is spending close to that amount this summer unless they have 2 or 3 players to compliance buyout when the CBA is completed. Summer cap of $75.9M. The NHL has to give their teams a number as to where the cap will be set. I am sure Bettman and Daly have a specific number in mind. The PA accepts 50% and some other system changes,where will be the cap be set?
69 mil is 57% of 121 mil
50% of 121 mil is 60.5 mil

Would there be rollbacks in that scenario? Would the union accept another rollback?

I'm sure there will be compliance buyouts, but we don't have anyone we want to buy out other than Redden, and that would only free up summer cap space.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 04:44 PM
  #72
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
69 mil is 57% of 121 mil
50% of 121 mil is 60.5 mil

Would there be rollbacks in that scenario? Would the union accept another rollback?

I'm sure there will be compliance buyouts, but we don't have anyone we want to buy out other than Redden, and that would only free up summer cap space.
How big is the rollback? It was 24% last time. The rollback was proposed by the PA. The NHL wants to lower the %. Change contract structure/put a year limit on contracts. Change the 2nd contract. McKenzie was discussing 2nd contracts on TSN this week. Another rollback? Anything else. The NHL is not starting in October.

I was thinking of the Leafs with the 2-3 compliance buyouts. Connolly,Lombardi and Komisarek.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 10:09 AM
  #73
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
With the PA's 5% bump,the cap will be $72M. $79.2M summer cap. That's crazy.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockeynight...#id=2208727715

Talks won't begin until after the season is over.

I agree with Milbury. Everyone knows the players will have to accept a cut from 57% to 50%. They shouldn't dick around and just get it done. The stupid NBA players went from having 57% to offering 54% to offering 53% to finally accepting the 49%-51% band. It took them 5 months to accept the cut.

The Europe games to start the season will be canceled.

The NHL should not have a $70M cap. There's barely enough to talent to support a $64.3M cap unless the NHL wants to have a 2 or 3 uberteams will all of the top players. That's why there is a cap in the first place.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 10:55 AM
  #74
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,867
vCash: 500
Quote:
The Leafs could find themselves in some salary difficulty depending on what happens to the cap for the coming season, especially if the general managers of the weaker financial franchises have their way. In the new collective-bargaining agreement, there is movement from some clubs to eliminate the rich teams from “burying contracts” in the minors, a la Jeff Finger and Colton Orr. The Leafs might be considering that in the future with Colby Armstrong or Matthew Lombardi, for example and maybe even Tim Connolly. But only if it doesn’t count against the cap
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/10...-bust-overseas

Non-starter.

The NHL tried that last time. The PA pushed back. You know the big market teams will have a major say considering they fork over millions in revenue sharing dollars.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2012, 03:41 PM
  #75
Jabroni
The People's Champ
 
Jabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
GM's meeting next week

The GM's want some answers on how they will run their teams until a new CBA is completed



http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...ls-uncertainty

The cap is not coming close to $69M in the next CBA. No team is spending close to that amount this summer unless they have 2 or 3 players to compliance buyout when the CBA is completed. Summer cap of $75.9M. The NHL has to give their teams a number as to where the cap will be set. I am sure Bettman and Daly have a specific number in mind. The PA accepts 50% and some other system changes,where will be the cap be set?
So, if the cap temporarily goes up in the summer before the new CBA is signed, what number should the organizations work with to make sure they don't go over the mystery cap?

Jabroni is online now   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 08:38 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.