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
07-16-2012, 12:14 AM
  #76
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,722
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
2.5 months later he signed up for a couple of contracts that will cost him $9 million more in salary than cap hit over the next several seasons. Great way to cut expenses.
So essentially his biggest problem was that nobody wanted to sign there and he was whining like a *****.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 11:20 AM
  #77
Anzes Eyes
5th line centre
 
Anzes Eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
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.
Exactly.. A CBA like this would make Edmonton a powerhouse. Tanking for 5 years would be your window to a dynasty by locking up young high draft picks. As Canuck fans we need to see UFAs bolt from the winter apocalypse to more livable destinations like Vancouver.

Anzes Eyes is offline  
Old
07-16-2012, 05:30 PM
  #78
Taelin
Resident Hipster
 
Taelin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,118
vCash: 500
ElliottPap:
Quote:
CBA TALKS: Canuck Cory Schneider says 'too early to panic'; agent Kurt Overhardt calls league 'arrogant, greedy.' http://t.co/Pdu0LCJk
ElliottPap:
Quote:
Cory Schneider on talks with league: "We're taking it one meeting at a time." #goodplan

Taelin is offline  
Old
07-17-2012, 11:05 AM
  #79
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
Hard to take the NHL's harsh offer seriously
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opin...seriously.html

AvantiCanada* is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:30 PM
  #80
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
vCash: 500
Well how do the owners justify asking for these recessions after the Suter, Parise, and now Weber contracts.

I sort of hope they drop the salary cap without a roll back...the league will look like a freakin' mess.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:34 PM
  #81
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I sort of hope they drop the salary cap without a roll back...the league will look like a freakin' mess.
Would there even be room for all the expensive players? Don't want to end up screwing them in the process. Other than that, I actually agree.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:55 PM
  #82
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,597
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Well how do the owners justify asking for these recessions after the Suter, Parise, and now Weber contracts.

I sort of hope they drop the salary cap without a roll back...the league will look like a freakin' mess.
Based on the same calculations of HRR, I came up with an upper limit of about $64M based on a 50/50 split. Change the definition of HRR and that figure can easily drop to $60M.

We would be screwed, but what happens to a team like Philly? Ouch.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 02:58 PM
  #83
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Philly must be swimming in excess cash to keep making deals like these. Have to wonder how an offer like this impacts owner solidarity - can't imagine Nashville ownership being too happy with high-revenue teams right now.

 
Old
07-19-2012, 03:05 PM
  #84
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,597
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Philly must be swimming in excess cash to keep making deals like these. Have to wonder how an offer like this impacts owner solidarity - can't imagine Nashville ownership being too happy with high-revenue teams right now.
Ed Snider has enough clout that he'll be fine. I agree that you'll probably see a number of owners seeking major changes to the CBA while others will be content to keep it as is.

I personally believe if you're a low revenue team because you can't achieve at least 90% of capacity in ticket sales with an average ticket price that's higher than a 40 of vodka that you should be looking at your own market before *****ing about the CBA.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 03:22 PM
  #85
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Based on the same calculations of HRR, I came up with an upper limit of about $64M based on a 50/50 split. Change the definition of HRR and that figure can easily drop to $60M.

We would be screwed, but what happens to a team like Philly? Ouch.
Yeah, but we only have one contract longer than 5 years remaining, actually two forgot about Garrison.

Drop booth and Ballard and replace with Schroeder and Connauton and we're still a really good team.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
07-19-2012, 04:12 PM
  #86
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,152
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Yeah, but we only have one contract longer than 5 years remaining, actually two forgot about Garrison.

Drop booth and Ballard and replace with Schroeder and Connauton and we're still a really good team.
Good luck trading either of those guys if there are a dozen teams scrambling to get under the cap.

In reality though, if the cap is lowered, there will be a mechanism for the rich teams to be compliant without screwing themselves over. An amnesty or something would have to be agreed to. There is no way that teams like the Rangers, Flyers, and Bruins, with the clout they have, will allow a CBA agreement that forces them to lose key players.

Chubros is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 01:24 PM
  #87
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
vCash: 500
Any chance we see 'cash considerations' as a trade asset, put back into the new CBA.

Ie. Nashville matches, Weber's offersheet, then auctions him off in a years time for the best package of players + cash.

arsmaster is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 01:26 PM
  #88
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
Good luck trading either of those guys if there are a dozen teams scrambling to get under the cap.

In reality though, if the cap is lowered, there will be a mechanism for the rich teams to be compliant without screwing themselves over. An amnesty or something would have to be agreed to. There is no way that teams like the Rangers, Flyers, and Bruins, with the clout they have, will allow a CBA agreement that forces them to lose key players.
That's why I said 'drop them'!

I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that there is an amnesty buy-out in the new CBA.

Clout or no Clout....if the owners want what they are asking for, they would have to make their own concessions./

arsmaster is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 01:34 PM
  #89
Agent007
Registered User
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
Any chance we see 'cash considerations' as a trade asset, put back into the new CBA.

Ie. Nashville matches, Weber's offersheet, then auctions him off in a years time for the best package of players + cash.
I'd be surprised to see that with a cap in place. People already don't like the fact that you could spend over the cap as long as you ship guys off to the AHL so I doubt there's any chance cash considerations come back.

Agent007 is offline  
Old
07-20-2012, 01:57 PM
  #90
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
The state of solidarity amongst the owners must be zero right now. I don't see how they are going to push a radical agenda against the PA at all when their is no unity amongst owners.

When one of the lead franchises, one that pulls as much weight amongst the BoG as Philly does purposefully attempts to irreparably harm the finances and long term viability of another franchise with an offersheet in such a a manner, I can't see many franchises willing to go it together.

I'd bet Fehr and the other PA execs laughed their faces off when he heard that offer sheet was signed. Oh, to have been bcc'd on that set of emails

AvantiCanada* is offline  
Old
07-21-2012, 04:52 PM
  #91
kootenayfan
Registered User
 
kootenayfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southeastern BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Interesting article written by a current NHL player.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...agreement.html

kootenayfan is offline  
Old
07-21-2012, 05:06 PM
  #92
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yinka Dene View Post
The state of solidarity amongst the owners must be zero right now. I don't see how they are going to push a radical agenda against the PA at all when their is no unity amongst owners.

When one of the lead franchises, one that pulls as much weight amongst the BoG as Philly does purposefully attempts to irreparably harm the finances and long term viability of another franchise with an offersheet in such a a manner, I can't see many franchises willing to go it together.

I'd bet Fehr and the other PA execs laughed their faces off when he heard that offer sheet was signed. Oh, to have been bcc'd on that set of emails
As for owner solidarity, they don't have to agree on every single point in the CBA. At the end of the day, majority rules, no different than us when we vote for our mayor, Premier/Governor, PM or President. You may not have voted for the person in power, but you still need to follow the laws that are passed by the governing body.

There is going to be a battle between the owners when it comes to revenue sharing. But, for all of the owners who voted "Yes" to the last round of expansion (MIN, CBS, ATL, NAS) you didn't have to expand. Could have kept the league smaller. Minny could have been a relocation destination instead of an expansion city. Now, those 4 cities have an equal vote, like the 26 teams, when the required number of votes let them join the league.

So, it's going to be a battle within ownership classes. Big, mid and low revenue generating teams.

They will figure it out. Not worrying about it.

I would however, if I was a big revenue team owner, tighten the rules about low revenue teams qualifying for revenue sharing. We've heard reports in the past where some teams have "purchased" 1000 or more of their own season tickets in order to hit the minimum requirement to qualify for the full share of revenue sharing. What the heck is that? That transaction would get picked out and eliminated in an Audit. Share money, but only to teams that are doing everything right and need the money to compete. If you run your team poorly, that's on you, as your revenue will be down.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
07-21-2012, 05:21 PM
  #93
ddawg1950
Registered User
 
ddawg1950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayfan View Post
Interesting article written by a current NHL player.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...agreement.html
Yeah good read. And of course biased from a player's stand point which is to be expected.

One of the things that keeps jumping out at me is the crucial definition of Hockey Related Revenue. HRR is an area that the players can legitimately make some gains in.

The luxury tax is another area tnat needs to be fully explored.

I agree with those who see a Dec 1 starting date.

ddawg1950 is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 11:25 AM
  #94
kootenayfan
Registered User
 
kootenayfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southeastern BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Yeah good read. And of course biased from a player's stand point which is to be expected.

One of the things that keeps jumping out at me is the crucial definition of Hockey Related Revenue. HRR is an area that the players can legitimately make some gains in.

The luxury tax is another area tnat needs to be fully explored.

I agree with those who see a Dec 1 starting date.
Yes it is bias from a players standpoint, but i would sure rather support them then the owners.

I wonder who this is that wrote it?

kootenayfan is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 11:47 AM
  #95
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayfan View Post
Yes it is bias from a players standpoint, but i would sure rather support them then the owners.

I wonder who this is that wrote it?
I agree...It's hard to support either side in these deals but the owners have really been their own worst enemy and show absolutely zero restraint. The players caved in and gave them the tools to balance the field a little and try to slow the escalation of salaries by implementing the cap, yet GM's and owners do everything they can to try and circumvent the rules they tried so hard to get put in place.

Canucker is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 12:07 PM
  #96
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
I agree...It's hard to support either side in these deals but the owners have really been their own worst enemy and show absolutely zero restraint. The players caved in and gave them the tools to balance the field a little and try to slow the escalation of salaries by implementing the cap, yet GM's and owners do everything they can to try and circumvent the rules they tried so hard to get put in place.
It's the GM's and agents combined that work out these deals to circumvent the cap. But, that also falls back on the NHL head office for allowing these "retirement" contracts in the first place.

But, the NHL operated that same way they do when handing down discipline decisions. We can suspend the player or dish out a longer suspension because we can't prove intent. Same with these contracts. We can't prove that the player plans to retire at age 37/38, with 2-3 years left on their contract that pays them a combined $2-$4 million.

NHL calcuates their cap hit differently than the NFL. NFL, no guaranteed contracts, so the signing bonuses are averaged out over the life of the deal, so if you cut a player 3 years into a 6 year deal, in year 4, you have to take the remaining signing bonus cap hit at once. Not sure how everything works if a player re-structures their contract after year 3 to help the cap hit. But, every NFL teams has "dead" cap space each season. Kind of like buyouts in the NHL.

NBA has guaranteed contracts, like the NHL. If believe they do their cap hits based on salary each season, but I'm not sure about that. After reading the luxury tax in the NBA, it is extremely punitive to go over the upper cap limit.

NHL needs to tighten up how they calculate the cap hit so that teams are getting hit with the true value of the player's cap hit. Take Luongo, if he plays out the 6 years left on his deal at $6.7 million in salary and then retires with 4 years and $7 million left, then his cap hit should have been about $7.14 million, not $5.33 million. Parise and Suter should have cap hits of $9.4 million, not $7.6 million. Crosby's new deal should be with a cap hit of $10.6 million, not $8.7 million.

Speaking of retirement deals, I'm surprised we are not hearing more out Anaheim regarding Perry/Getzlaf's agents wanting a retirement deal for their clients. Like Sid, they have 1 year left on their deals, but can sign an extension, thus they can get the retirement contract. Are the Ducks hoping that the new CBA will eliminate them so that they don't have to dish out a big signing bonus? Flip side is that they will incur a larger cap hit later on, if both guys want Suter/Parise money, $9 million plus per season.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 12:31 PM
  #97
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
As for owner solidarity, they don't have to agree on every single point in the CBA. At the end of the day, majority rules, no different than us when we vote for our mayor, Premier/Governor, PM or President. You may not have voted for the person in power, but you still need to follow the laws that are passed by the governing body.
That isn't how the NHL BoG works.

AvantiCanada* is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 03:35 PM
  #98
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yinka Dene View Post
That isn't how the NHL BoG works.
Not a simple majority, but any deal has to be ratified by a certain percentage of the BOG. I think it's like 75% of the owners need to vote yes in order to have the CBA passed.

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 05:34 PM
  #99
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,225
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kootenayfan View Post
Interesting article written by a current NHL player.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/...agreement.html
www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366
The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.


The problem with the old CBA was the revenue split with the players. It accelerated too fast, lack of allowance for inflation, it seemed like it might be a problem at the time, but both sides wanted the deal and the players got a really nice bone to offset their loses. 57 percent is too high IMHO, it started out at 54% and should have stayed at 54% ie if revenue jumped up from <$2.2b to >$2.7b, that's a good pay increase just at as it is @ 54%.

me2 is offline  
Old
07-22-2012, 05:54 PM
  #100
AvantiCanada*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=26366
The players' share will be 54% to the extent League revenues in any year are below $2.2 billion; 55% when League revenues are between $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion; 56% when League revenues are between $2.4 billion and $2.7 billion, and 57% when League revenues in any year exceed $2.7 billion.


The problem with the old CBA was the revenue split with the players. It accelerated too fast, lack of allowance for inflation, it seemed like it might be a problem at the time, but both sides wanted the deal and the players got a really nice bone to offset their loses. 57 percent is too high IMHO, it started out at 54% and should have stayed at 54% ie if revenue jumped up from <$2.2b to >$2.7b, that's a good pay increase just at as it is @ 54%.
It seems to me that with players putting their health and safety on the line that a much greater proportion of revenues ought to go to them.

AvantiCanada* 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 04:14 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.