HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

CBA Negotiations

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2012, 06:57 PM
  #676
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Tim Panaccio ‏@tpanotchCSN
Bill Daly clarifies: Bettman, Daly, both Fehrs meeting ... that's news. all 4 of them

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 12:37 PM
  #677
toughfighter83*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish Invictus View Post
OK, how do you still not understand this? The owners are in financial trouble because the owners have spent poorly. The players get paid a lot because the owners are willing to hand out huge contracts, like the one Snider threw to Weber. Do you think Weber strode into Snider's office and demanded that contract? Do you think Snider cowered behind his chair and threw a sack of money at him? Hell no, Snider chose to allow it willingly. The owners'/leagues' financial foes are their own fault, especially since they seem hell bent on keeping franchises like Phoenix on costly life support. Blaming the players for bad management is absurd.

The players will end up having to accept a pay cut to re-balance the cap and stuff, but none of this is their fault. The fact that they don't want a paycut is a perfectly natural reaction that any sane person would have.
in the end, you dont care about what happens to hockey, players are always right no matter what because they have a right to be rich and hockey is lost because of it and if the owners didnt agree to pay the money to players, you are still going to blame them because you think wealth to players is more important than keeping the business going.


Last edited by toughfighter83*: 09-25-2012 at 12:42 PM.
toughfighter83* is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 01:17 PM
  #678
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 37,762
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
in the end, you dont care about what happens to hockey, players are always right no matter what because they have a right to be rich and hockey is lost because of it and if the owners didnt agree to pay the money to players, you are still going to blame them because you think wealth to players is more important than keeping the business going.

I don't know how it's remotely possible to read what I said and come to any of the conclusions you just did.

Somehow, you've turned "Don't blame the players for management's mistakes" into "You hate hockey and think the players are infallible." Seriously, how do you manage to extract that from what I said?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 09-25-2012 at 05:29 PM.
Beef Invictus is online now  
Old
09-25-2012, 02:39 PM
  #679
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
NHL and NHLPA are meeting on friday

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 03:43 PM
  #680
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,407
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by toughfighter83 View Post
in the end, you dont care about what happens to hockey, players are always right no matter what because they have a right to be rich and hockey is lost because of it and if the owners didnt agree to pay the money to players, you are still going to blame them because you think wealth to players is more important than keeping the business going.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 03:52 PM
  #681
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoneFullHolmgren View Post
Surprisingly, he is actually right.. Maybe not in this thread, but reading through other CBA threads, there's tons of people who are blind pro players without actually knowing anything that is going on at all

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 04:28 PM
  #682
GoneFullHextall
adios Holmgren
 
GoneFullHextall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somewhere in NH
Country: United States
Posts: 31,407
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Surprisingly, he is actually right.. Maybe not in this thread, but reading through other CBA threads, there's tons of people who are blind pro players without actually knowing anything that is going on at all
of course there are no people "blind" to the owners cause.

GoneFullHextall is offline  
Old
09-25-2012, 05:03 PM
  #683
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Of course not, you would have to know what is being argued over..

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 12:45 AM
  #684
usahockey22flyers
Classic Coburn...
 
usahockey22flyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,334
vCash: 500
I have a weird feeling a deal is going to get done.

usahockey22flyers is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 01:13 AM
  #685
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Why? it's non economic discussions..

Meaning no talk about the split

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 01:41 AM
  #686
usahockey22flyers
Classic Coburn...
 
usahockey22flyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Why? it's non economic discussions..

Meaning no talk about the split
I think the North American players are really willing to work out a deal, so I have hope...

Happy Birthday btw

usahockey22flyers is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 07:48 AM
  #687
EvilAsh
Lockouts Rule!
 
EvilAsh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 225
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by usahockey22flyers View Post
I have a weird feeling a deal is going to get done.
That's not a feeling. That is hope. I think we all have it.

EvilAsh is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 03:30 PM
  #688
Flyerfan808
Registered User
 
Flyerfan808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,002
vCash: 500
If I were the owners, I'd be willing to let the players keep their current share of HRR if they would be willing to absorb some of the costs of running the team. Mainly travel, equipment, and physical therapy:

1. Hire a travel agent and/or find your own way to all the games. Rail, Bus, Plane idgaf how, just be there. Fly coach and save some money!!!

2. Handle your own accomodations while on the road: rental car, hotel room, meals etc.

3. Manage your own equipment including sticks, tape, pads, etc; be responsible for getting it to all the games. Additionally, equipment staffing for games including travel will be the players responsibility.

4. The players collectively are responsible for hiring their own team physicians, physical trainers/therapists, etc. and be responsible for getting them to all the games.

Do all these things and you get to keep your 57% or accept a rollback to something around 50/50 & things stay the way they are.

Flyerfan808 is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 03:33 PM
  #689
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
Players would never do that.

They want want at least the same amount of money or more from this year which was about 1.88 billion.. Their proposals keep them at this number and then they get raises each year depending on growth while still still having owners pay for accommodation

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-26-2012, 03:42 PM
  #690
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyerfan808 View Post
If I were the owners, I'd be willing to let the players keep their current share of HRR if they would be willing to absorb some of the costs of running the team. Mainly travel, equipment, and physical therapy:

1. Hire a travel agent and/or find your own way to all the games. Rail, Bus, Plane idgaf how, just be there. Fly coach and save some money!!!

2. Handle your own accomodations while on the road: rental car, hotel room, meals etc.

3. Manage your own equipment including sticks, tape, pads, etc; be responsible for getting it to all the games. Additionally, equipment staffing for games including travel will be the players responsibility.

4. The players collectively are responsible for hiring their own team physicians, physical trainers/therapists, etc. and be responsible for getting them to all the games.

Do all these things and you get to keep your 57% or accept a rollback to something around 50/50 & things stay the way they are.
If I'm the players, I might agree to what you proposed, assuming that the owners are prepared to play the game themselves--and see who shows up to see Ed Snider suit up against Charles Wang.

The owners provide certain services and value, sure, but the fans don't show up (or tune in) to see the owners, the advertisers, or the team's training staff. To suggest that the players aren't delivering their part of value to the product already seems a bit ludicrous to me.

...I think you've just demonstrated why the owners are having difficulty getting the players to the table. Their "concessions" consist of give-backs on their own demands. The people who criticize the players for not negotiating drive me nuts--if they had simply demanded a 70 percent share from the start, they could have whittled it back to 60 percent, and rightly claimed to have done as much as the owners to date.

The players will have to come down closer to 50 percent--everyone knows this--but the owners are going to need to accept a reasonably status quo definition of HRR and probably make some concessions re: contracts, etc. They can't demand the players roll back their share of revenue--and then assume they will get a 50-50 split over the remaining issues, let alone suggest raising UFA age, extending ELCs, etc.--and assume this is going to go well.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 11:28 AM
  #691
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,632
vCash: 500
Have either of these proposals sought to curb the salary cap circumvention via cheap years at the end of contracts? I mean yes player costs are out of control, but there are tons of deals being thrown out that heavily front load and tack on dirt cheap years. Teams are knowingly circumventing the salary cap and now sitting here complaining about losing money, well no ****.

McNasty is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 11:32 AM
  #692
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Have either of these proposals sought to curb the salary cap circumvention via cheap years at the end of contracts? I mean yes player costs are out of control, but there are tons of deals being thrown out that heavily front load and tack on dirt cheap years. Teams are knowingly circumventing the salary cap and now sitting here complaining about losing money, well no ****.
From what I gather, that's one of the "peripheral" issues that the NHL wants to deal with...after settling the core economic concerns.

It's a tricky proposition, though. If you limit the length of contract, it will really screw with the cap.

Obviously existing deals will be grandfathered in, but hypothetically, it would be incredibly difficult for Pittsburgh to fit both Crosby and Malkin in under a reduced cap without tappering the deal over a long period.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 11:42 AM
  #693
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
From what I gather, that's one of the "peripheral" issues that the NHL wants to deal with...after settling the core economic concerns.

It's a tricky proposition, though. If you limit the length of contract, it will really screw with the cap.

Obviously existing deals will be grandfathered in, but hypothetically, it would be incredibly difficult for Pittsburgh to fit both Crosby and Malkin in under a reduced cap without tappering the deal over a long period.
Right, but stretching the deal it is what's circumventing the cap. Understandably the NHLPA doesn't want it to change, but it's a pretty big cause of the rising player costs where the big market teams are able to offer more money and cheat the cap system.

McNasty is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 11:48 AM
  #694
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Right, but stretching the deal it is what's circumventing the cap. Understandably the NHLPA doesn't want it to change, but it's a pretty big cause of the rising player costs where the big market teams are able to offer more money and cheat the cap system.
I don't disagree, but I'm just not sure that limiting the length /structure of contracts is the best way to address the issue.

It seems to me that tweaking with the way the cap hit is calculated might be a better place to start--do something like the RFA compensation system--only use the first 5 years to determine the cap hit, perhaps with some additional alteration (a certain percentage of that number?), rather than AAV. That would limit the ability of teams to completely front-load the "real" money (and thus over-spend), while also providing the player with the long-term financial security that he deserves, given the nature of the sport.

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 12:47 PM
  #695
McNasty
Registered User
 
McNasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rutgers
Country: United States
Posts: 5,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I don't disagree, but I'm just not sure that limiting the length /structure of contracts is the best way to address the issue.

It seems to me that tweaking with the way the cap hit is calculated might be a better place to start--do something like the RFA compensation system--only use the first 5 years to determine the cap hit, perhaps with some additional alteration (a certain percentage of that number?), rather than AAV. That would limit the ability of teams to completely front-load the "real" money (and thus over-spend), while also providing the player with the long-term financial security that he deserves, given the nature of the sport.
Couldn't they just back load it?

Edit: obviously the players would be less likely to accept this, but the potential loophole is still there.

IMO the simple solution is to extend the 35+ rule to any contract that takes a player past his 35th birthday. If they don't want to do that then they need to stipulate something like no year can be a lower salary then 50% of the maximum year and make sure that the salary in this case includes signing bonus money.

McNasty is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 12:55 PM
  #696
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNasty View Post
Couldn't they just back load it?

Edit: obviously the players would be less likely to accept this, but the potential loophole is still there.

IMO the simple solution is to extend the 35+ rule to any contract that takes a player past his 35th birthday. If they don't want to do that then they need to stipulate something like no year can be a lower salary then 50% of the maximum year and make sure that the salary in this case includes signing bonus money.
I suppose--so maybe it would have to be the average of the 5 highest years--though, of course, there is far greater value in front-loading a deal from the player's perspective.

As per the 35+ thing--are you suggesting that it would apply through the whole contract (if it took a player beyond 35), or only to the years they were beyond 35?

In other words, would the Penguins be saddled with Crosby's cap hit for the next 12 years if he was forced to retire tomorrow from another concussion?

Maybe another solution is a variation on the 5-highest-years thing--only count those years up so some number (35 years old) in calculating the cap hit?

Jack de la Hoya is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 06:40 PM
  #697
ApeZilla
Registered User
 
ApeZilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mt. Pocono, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 641
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ApeZilla
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=6...id=DL|NHL|home


formality

ApeZilla is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 06:44 PM
  #698
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,050
vCash: 50
http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2...rseas/related/

Quote:
Don Cherry thinks North American NHL players should stay in North America during the lockout instead of heading overseas to “take jobs away.”

Grapes made his opinion known Wednesday on Twitter.

It wasn’t the first time he’s tweeted on the subject. Last week, he wrote: “I don’t blame the Europeans for going to play in Europe but you millionaires you’re supposed to be a union. Stay together and fight the good fight on this side of the ocean instead of going over and taking jobs from some poor guy trying to make a living.”

Krishna is offline  
Old
09-27-2012, 08:55 PM
  #699
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post


Hockey goes poltical! Hooray!

CS is offline  
Old
09-28-2012, 05:43 AM
  #700
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,514
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Makes sense. I never thought about it that way. These unions are supposed to be real strong and respect each other (are there unions in the leagues overseas?).

DrinkFightFlyers is online now  
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 09:04 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.