HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA Talk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2012, 05:04 PM
  #26
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Kassian Train View Post
Interesting that Fehr would say that he has had leagues start without a new CBA in place. Personally I believe it is crucial that they move forward with the season and work on a new CBA during the season.



Source: TSN
I can't think why the owners would agree to that. It simply hands all the leverage to the players who can then strike as it gets closer to the playoffs if their demands aren't being met. That's how the 1994 MLB strike played out and I don't see owners repeating it, especially teams that are losing money anyway.

Maybe if they're really close to a deal they could play without an agreement, but other than that I expect another lockout if this isn't solved over the summer.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 10:39 PM
  #27
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3


http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/7...cy-negotiation


There are also reports that they want to require the same salary every year in a contract, no more signing bonuses, and for the cap ceiling to be $4 million above the midpoint with the floor being $8 million below.

Hopefully they're just leaving lots of room for negotiation.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 10:47 PM
  #28
Basso
Registered User
 
Basso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 855
vCash: 500
It's already predicted by many experts that there will be a strike, but only a half a season strike. Not a full blown one.

Hurray for NHL, the league that strikes every chance they get!

Basso is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 11:12 PM
  #29
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:
I dunno, mate, this proposal looks a few shades past "ridiculous".

This looks like thermonuclear war.

 
Old
07-13-2012, 11:38 PM
  #30
LongRoad
Registered User
 
LongRoad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basso View Post
It's already predicted by many experts that there will be a strike, but only a half a season strike. Not a full blown one.

Hurray for NHL, the league that strikes every chance they get!
Wouldn't it be a lockout rather than a strike? Looking at that owner's proposal I'd imagine the players are much happier under the current CBA than they are.

LongRoad is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 11:38 PM
  #31
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
The owners better be flexible, because that is a lousy offer and we're likely headed towards a work stoppage if they are set on those goals.

The owners are really out of it if they think they aren't the biggest problem with the NHL right now.

AvantiCanada* is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 11:44 PM
  #32
Carl Carlson
Registered User
 
Carl Carlson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,358
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3


http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/7...cy-negotiation


There are also reports that they want to require the same salary every year in a contract, no more signing bonuses, and for the cap ceiling to be $4 million above the midpoint with the floor being $8 million below.

Hopefully they're just leaving lots of room for negotiation.

That is brutal. Unless both sides are able to negotiate this will get ugly fast. I'd hate to see us lose another season or the majority of a season again.

Carl Carlson is offline  
Old
07-13-2012, 11:48 PM
  #33
mrbitterguy
Registered User
 
mrbitterguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: san francisco
Country: Canada
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
this proposal is a ****ing joke. it strikes me that the owners are trying to act tough because they must know that fehr isn't going to bend over and grab his ankles like the players did last time. macho posturing that is going to make them look pathetic when the final deal gets signed. if they really are dumb enough to play this kind of thermonuclear hardball there won't be a season again and the game will go back into the black hole it was in after the last lockout.

so pissed off to read that today. i officially hate bettman more than any other sports personality again.

mrbitterguy is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:05 AM
  #34
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,370
vCash: 50
Yeah I understand the principle behind bartering/negotiating but I've never understood this tactic of starting out with such a ridiculous opening point. You want to get a better deal for your side of course, but doing this just tells the other party you think they're a bunch of idiots. And I don't see how it's constructive to treat the other side your working with like a bunch of idiots.

RandV is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:19 AM
  #35
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV View Post
Yeah I understand the principle behind bartering/negotiating but I've never understood this tactic of starting out with such a ridiculous opening point. You want to get a better deal for your side of course, but doing this just tells the other party you think they're a bunch of idiots. And I don't see how it's constructive to treat the other side your working with like a bunch of idiots.
I agree, this sort of posturing is really counter-productive. How do you come away not looking like complete *******s when you make such a silly opening offer? All this is going to do is put the PA on the defensive and hinder negotiations. These owners are their own worst enemies, especially when you see all these crazy contracts being signed. Fix the loopholes in the current CBA and balance out the revenues a bit more and really...nobody should have any complaints.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:26 AM
  #36
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,168
vCash: 500
It is pretty funny seeing probably 1/4 of the league offer Suter and Parise 10+ year massively front loaded contracts including some personal pitches from owners (Mike Ilitch flew to Madison to court Suter) and then a week later have the same guys propose these limits. They really are their own worst enemies.

opendoor is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:32 AM
  #37
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
It is pretty funny seeing probably 1/4 of the league offer Suter and Parise 10+ year massively front loaded contracts including some personal pitches from owners (Mike Ilitch flew to Madison to court Suter) and then a week later have the same guys propose these limits. They really are their own worst enemies.
You'd think with $3.3 billion in revenues, they could find a way to come together and play nicely and hammer out an equitable deal for both parties.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:32 AM
  #38
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,959
vCash: 500
If the owners go into a lockout with these conditions, the fans will be on the players side this time.

No way the players are going to take; a 22% paycut (57% down to 46%), increase UFA age to ~30 (10 years in the NHL up from 7), 5 year entry level contracts, no salary arbitration rights, 5 year limits on contracts with equal $ amounts every season, and redefining hockey related revenue in favour of the owners.

This rewards teams that tank way too much, as young players would be stuck with their draft teams until they are 30. If they make the team as an 18 year old, 28 would be the minimum age. If a players prime is 25-33, the player would only have 3 prime years to cash in on. This is totally the wrong direction to take, teams shouldn't be punished this harshly for being competitive in the standings. If they are taking away arbitration rights, they should at least drastically lower offer sheet compensation to give the players some leverage in negotiations.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 12:35 AM
  #39
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
If the league was really taking a hard line, they'd have gone after something fundamental like guaranteed contracts. Almost everything here involves numbers that can be negotiated on; there's not much in the way of binary choices except arbitration (which I can't really see being that big a deal to the owners) and the stuff Brooks mentioned about restricting contracts to the same value each year.

It's a decent place to begin, the owners can give a lot of ground from here and still come away with a win, and there's no major point of contention where they won't give any ground, like the cap/cost certainty was last time. It won't be pretty, but I think this gets done in time to avoid a regular season disruption.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:08 AM
  #40
west in the east
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Ireland
Posts: 3,456
vCash: 500
Ridiculous starting point, but not surprising in a contentious negotiation. The problem is there appears to be no game plan for running the league in a more efficient manner. Not surprising with Betman at the helm. He does not appear to be a smart man and seems an adversarial approach is the only way to find a solution and getting more money for delinquent franchises is good for the league. (see just throwing money at health care as a fix for it)

Betman is looking at a predictable end game.. Likely pushing for a revenue split in the 52% range with a term cap on contracts, an extra couple years on ELCs and before UFA.

It is clear Betman is only working for the lower-end franchises.

west in the east is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:27 AM
  #41
canuck4life16
Registered User
 
canuck4life16's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vancity
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,496
vCash: 50
where is wetcoaster? I sure he would know this stuff than most poster here.....

canuck4life16 is online now  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:28 AM
  #42
Treefingers
\_(ツ)_/
 
Treefingers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,468
vCash: 500
Wow, that's a ridiculous proposal. Not entirely unexpected, but still. Sigh.

Treefingers is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 01:54 AM
  #43
DoubleTrouble
Registered User
 
DoubleTrouble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fraser Valley
Country: Canada
Posts: 517
vCash: 500
This is very normal in opening negotiation.

The owner come in with something the players will say no to

I'm sure the player will come back with some kind of soft cap and both sides will bend to make a deal.

The owner have said that on Sept 15th the old CBA will end but if they can't work out a deal by the start of the season the two sides can agree to go back to the old CBA for another season while they try and make a new one.

Neither sides want a strike or lockout cause in the end it will hurt both sides.

DoubleTrouble is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:07 AM
  #44
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3


http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/7...cy-negotiation


There are also reports that they want to require the same salary every year in a contract, no more signing bonuses, and for the cap ceiling to be $4 million above the midpoint with the floor being $8 million below.

Hopefully they're just leaving lots of room for negotiation.
I actually like number 2 and 5 a lot.

Chubros is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:15 AM
  #45
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucbourdon View Post
Good time to start this thread, with all the news coming out.

Cory Schneider and Manny Malholtra as Canucks on NHLPA negotiating committee for the new CBA.
Burrows too.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:19 AM
  #46
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3


http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/7...cy-negotiation


There are also reports that they want to require the same salary every year in a contract, no more signing bonuses, and for the cap ceiling to be $4 million above the midpoint with the floor being $8 million below.

Hopefully they're just leaving lots of room for negotiation.
Some points make sense, others don't.

1) Owners definately going after a drop in revenue split to the players. Not going to be 46%, but closer to what the NBA/NFL got.

2) What does UFA matter these days? We've seen how many countless top end talents re-sign with their clubs and forgo UFA? Probably stays at 7 years.

3) Max term contracts, no signing bonuses, equal payment per season all seem like tools to ensure that there are no more "retirement" contracts. Take Parise & Suter, assuming that they don't play any of the final 3 years of their deals where they make a total of $4 million, their cap hit would be $9.4 million, not the $7.6 million it is now. Luongo's cap hit, if he only plays the years where his salary is greater than his cap hit would be about $7.1 million versus the $5.3 million it is now. All of this is negotiable, but I like the fact that the NHL is trying to get rid of these types of contracts.

4) I think you need to have salary arbitration at some point in time. I personally like the MLB's arbitration style where the arbitor picks either the owner's or player's number rather than assigning his own number.

5) 5 years is too long for an ELC contract. 4 years max.

As much as we would like to see the 2 sides cut out the BS and get to the heart of the matter, this is all part of the process.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 02:54 AM
  #47
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,309
vCash: 883
5 year ELCs may actually be the dagger to some players that would bolt to the KHL.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:06 AM
  #48
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
I actually like number 2 and 5 a lot.
Are you a fan of another team? The Canucks benefit more than a lot of teams with the current CBA rules. They do not lose their own free agents very often and seem to have an occasional advantage in attracting players. The current CBA rules and cap is largely responsible for this clubs current competitiveness.

# 5 is absolutely moronic. What player is going to vote on a mandatory five year entry level clause? What team wants to give out a five year contract to EVERY prospect they want to sign? Think about it for a moment: Imagine having to wait 5 years for Gendur or Ellington's contracts to expire so you can open up a spot on the 50 man limit. #5 only makes sense if you have a blue chip prospect to sign. Otherwise it puts the team in a risky position.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 03:23 AM
  #49
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
5 year ELCs may actually be the dagger to some players that would bolt to the KHL.
yep, absolutely stupid clause and the rest are right behind it.

There is no reason to drastically change things. As much as people complain, the 2004 CBA was good for the league and the fans. Revenues are up. Most markets with potential have been rejuvenated and are financially successful. It is generally agreed that the league has achieved parity and a different team has won the cup in every season since the 2004 lockout.

The league has all the resources it needs to be successful now. The only thing that really needs to change is the cap floor and possibly revenue sharing. It's not up to the players to rectify the leagues mistakes again. If the NHL insists on staying in Phoenix and continually allows owners like Charles Wang to run their franchises into the ground, that is their problem.

silvercanuck is offline  
Old
07-14-2012, 07:05 AM
  #50
Jevo
Registered User
 
Jevo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Denmark
Posts: 2,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Not surprisingly, the owners' opening proposal is ridiculous:

1) 46% players share down from 57%

2) 10 seasons before UFA rather than the current 7

3) 5 year max on contract lengths

4) No more salary arbitration

5) 5 year long ELCs rather than the current 3


http://www.ontheforecheck.com/2012/7...cy-negotiation


There are also reports that they want to require the same salary every year in a contract, no more signing bonuses, and for the cap ceiling to be $4 million above the midpoint with the floor being $8 million below.

Hopefully they're just leaving lots of room for negotiation.
I see points 1) and 3) as the ones the owners really want, while the other three is to used as bones to the players, the owners probably have no hope of ever getting rid of salary arbitration, but they say they want too, so that when they give it up during negotiations the NHLPA feels like they have accomplished something and will be more reluctant to go the owners way on the points they really want.

Why they want the two points:

1) because they want more money, especially cap floor owners for whom the rapidly rising floor makes it harder and harder to justify their toy.

3) They want to shorten contracts to increase equality and make it easier for poorer teams to sign FAs, this together with even pay through all years and no signing bonus will make it easier for floor teams to match the offers from NYR, Toronto, Vancouver etc. It will also end Ehrhoff like contracts that puts him in the top 5 salary wise in his first year while on a 4 million cap hit, an offer that a team like Florida can't match. They probably won't get 5 years though, but will probably end up somewhere around 7. They want equality in this area because the league, and thereby the owners, are better off if teams like Florida, Phoenix and NYI starts making more money off their hockey operations.

Jevo 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 02:38 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.