HFBoards

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

Ladies and gentleman we are going on a strike or lock-out

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2012, 02:55 AM
  #26
Pr3Va1L
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...


Goodbye Russians.....

Pr3Va1L is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 03:02 AM
  #27
HCH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The Wild West
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonlightGraham View Post
It's still very early of course they're going to ask for the moon. Honestly I don't think there's going to be a work stoppage, and if there's one it's going to be very short. The NHL is making money now, they'll figure something out, just like the NFL did.
Unlike the NFL where all teams are profitable, there are many teams in the NHL that are not. Different circumstances

HCH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 03:18 AM
  #28
NewHabsEra*
 
NewHabsEra*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,695
vCash: 500
I like the 10 years before reaching free agency, that way we will keep our young talended kids longer..

NewHabsEra* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:51 AM
  #29
RC51
Registered User
 
RC51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,686
vCash: 500
wow that' some list.
the only thing missing is the bringing back of the old master-serf clause called " prima nota "
it's when any common girl gets married to a hockey player, the owner of the team has sexual rights to her on the first night.

RC51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 04:54 AM
  #30
Corncob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habaneros View Post
If they do blow this season up , i will have to thank Pierre Gauthier, and i honestly mean that .

If everyone is goona be gready, i'll be greedy too, give me Nathan MacKinnon .Spare me the pain of a last place finish .

If we do get a shot at him or get him or another top 1 to 3 pick, i will buy a "I love Pierre Gauthier "tee shirt.

I will also admit by luck ,the entire Gauthier crash was worth it .
Can't really work out what you think Gauthier would have had to do with the lock out...

Corncob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 05:57 AM
  #31
StanAjax
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Nantes
Country: France
Posts: 1,585
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
- % of revenues : hard to guess this one or to have an opinion. Decreasing from 57 to 52-53 should be enough for this negociation. Aiming at 50-50 the next time.

- Max. length of contracts 5 years : That one is mandatory. No more stupid contracts leading players to 40 years old when they're 25-27 ! In European soccer, 5 years contracts are the max. length.

- No more arbitration : Who cares, really ? It's less and less used nowadays...

- 5 years entry level contracts : No, this one is not needed. Better the 5 years limit to all contracts and upping the UFA age.

- 10 NHL years before free agency : I'd add, "or being 30 years old". This one will be hard to get. If I had to choose between this one and the length of contracts capped to 5 years, I'd choose the length of contracts capped. Getting 2 or even 1 year on free agency should be good enough.

StanAjax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 06:33 AM
  #32
Crimson Skorpion
HFB Partner
 
Crimson Skorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lachine, Quebec
Country: Germany
Posts: 28,862
vCash: 500
Awards:
I understand that they were going in with low-ball offers to start off with so they can work around it and find a perfect medium, but man those starting points are pretty insulting, if you ask me.

__________________
Shawn Wilken,
Head of Hockey Department
LastWordOnSports.com


Want to write for us? Head to lastwordonsports.com/writeforus and apply!
Crimson Skorpion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 06:40 AM
  #33
bsl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
Bettman is such a stupid dick. You think the players and NHLPA don't know this is a stupid low ball? Duh. It's insulting.

Now he's created even more problems by making such an insulting offer.

What an utter ass. He probably thinks he's being crafty.

Now we face a second lockout in what, 8 years. What a frigging dick this guy is.

This is so bad for the NHL, just really really bad. And if there is a lockout, Bettman should fry. What a stupid dick he is.


Last edited by bsl: 07-14-2012 at 07:41 AM.
bsl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 06:53 AM
  #34
ChemiseBleuHonnete
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 9,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post
I understand that they were going in with low-ball offers to start off with so they can work around it and find a perfect medium, but man those starting points are pretty insulting, if you ask me.
This... I don't agree that you should start negociating so far from what you're going to settle for. It's just insulting when you go too far. Why don't they try to be fair this time? They're going to piss off the player this time and the fans too. We missed a full year of hockey because the owners couldn't stay reasonable with no salary cap. This time, everyone will be on the players' side.

ChemiseBleuHonnete is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 07:27 AM
  #35
Uwey
Registered User
 
Uwey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Lunenburg, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 551
vCash: 500
As I said after the last lockout, it doesn't matter what the owners ask for, in the end they screw themselves by finding loopholes & still offering mind numbing contracts.

If they want to control this, they easily could.

Plus, the cap wouldn't continually climb if the league wasn't making money. They fudge the books & if I remember correctly did not completely open their books for NHLPA to look at the last time.


Everytime this game starts to turn the corner to success, Bettman ****s it up!!! Look at his first lockout in '94, the NHL was more popular than the NBA at the time in the USA & they have never recovered from that one yet.


The PA is not holding a gun to these owners heads, the owners themselves cut their own throats then cry & whine that it is the NHPA that is the problem.

Bottom line, Bettman is the problem, period!!!!


Last edited by Uwey: 07-14-2012 at 07:32 AM.
Uwey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 07:32 AM
  #36
NORiculous
Registered User
 
NORiculous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,688
vCash: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
When you are negociating, if the person you are negociating eith understands what you are doing, you have lost the negociation.

Now since everyone here seems to think this is a lowball offer, I will say it isn't.

However,

I'm thinking that some of those points are not so important for the owners and thus they can be "removed" for the begociation as a barganing point.

That being said, I would classify the demands into two groups.

1. 46%

2. The rest of the demands which are only ways to help manage.

I'm guessing that all the points under #2 can be conceded, to a point, in order to maintain point #1.

Of course, the NHL will try to keep as much points in #2 that they can during the process.

Sometimes in negociations, there are points you CAN'T negociate on because if you do, you lose the whole perpous of the business which is to make money.

Buy changing the % they will probably bring to the table that 47 is the number it needs to be in order for all teams not to lose money.

They will then try to win a few #2 points as to help manage the situation in order to keep things under control.


Anyways, time will tell. It will be an interesting summer.

NORiculous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 07:46 AM
  #37
JohnnyReb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 594
vCash: 500
So for all those saying it's a negotiating tactic, and that you start low, and that this is some clever ploy by Bettman, would you be saying the same thing if Fehr made just as ridiculous an offer? Or would you be howling in outrage? Imagine if Fehr and the NHLPA made this offer

* An increase in players share to 65%

* UFA at 24

* Increase ELC by 50%

* Minimum contract length must be three years

* Mandatory signing bonuses equivalent to 5% of every contract

* No trade clauses for every player

Would everybody be sitting there saying "oh, it's just initial offer, nothing to worry about?" Of course not. It would be a stupid offer, just like this is a stupid offer. This is all about breaking the union again, so these billionaires can claim yet another victory. Has nothing to do with the good of the game, in any way, shape or form.

JohnnyReb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 08:10 AM
  #38
furrfu
Registered User
 
furrfu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51 View Post
wow that' some list.
the only thing missing is the bringing back of the old master-serf clause called " prima nota "
it's when any common girl gets married to a hockey player, the owner of the team has sexual rights to her on the first night.
Nicely done

furrfu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 08:24 AM
  #39
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimsonSkorpion View Post
I understand that they were going in with low-ball offers to start off with so they can work around it and find a perfect medium, but man those starting points are pretty insulting, if you ask me.
Yeah, me too. I know everybody is saying "that's the textbook approach to a negotiation" and whatnot, but to me... I don't see any point as a fan in even trying to follow the dialogue if the bargaining is going to start like that. It's a sheer waste of time. You'd think the sides would be familiar enough with eachothers Ideal desires that you don't even need to state them. The players would want no cap, no term or salary restrictions whatsoever at any age, and completely unlimited free agency. Yeah, great. But why waste time telling the other side that?

I'm going to have to make a conscious effort trying to avoid paying attention to the whole CBA issue. It became such a captivating subject on its own during the last lockout. But the novelty has worn off. I hope I'm strong enough to take a pass this time around.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 08:36 AM
  #40
WeThreeKings
DJ Nikita
 
WeThreeKings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 37,328
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to WeThreeKings
The entry level deal will not work, that one is guaranteed. 3 years is the perfect amount.
The UFA age should be 30. Teams should be allowed to keep who they drafted and developed through their prime years.
They need to close the NCAA loop-hole.
5 or 7 year cap on contracts.

WeThreeKings is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 08:55 AM
  #41
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,586
vCash: 500
If they go with what they really want right at the start, then they have nowhere to go later during negotiations. If they aim for 50-50 split, 46% isn't that far off, that's how you should look at it. They can't start at 50%, because then the next step is to concede a bit, so you just lost what you were gunning for.

The 10 years FA stuff I'm not a fan of. I think it's 7 right now? That's fine. Leave it that way.

The 5 years ELC I don't like either.

I'm a big fan of the max-5 years contracts stuff. That's *really* something that needs to be done.

So overall, I agree that the owners made a very low offer. I'm fine with 46% stuff, because that will go up throughout the process. But the rest of the offer is indeed pretty rough for the players. They're asking the players to concede a lot of things. Although, I think it's worth discussing the whole "cap floor is 8% below mid point". What's the current number? Because that's a place where players could go and fetch more money.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 08:56 AM
  #42
Gabe84
Bring back Bonk!
 
Gabe84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The entry level deal will not work, that one is guaranteed. 3 years is the perfect amount.
The UFA age should be 30. Teams should be allowed to keep who they drafted and developed through their prime years.
They need to close the NCAA loop-hole.
5 or 7 year cap on contracts.
Oh yes! I had forgotten about that one. Please don't let another Blake Wheeler/Justin Schultz fiasco happen.

Gabe84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:04 AM
  #43
Des Louise
Formerly E=CH2
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Country: Sri Lanka
Posts: 17,191
vCash: 500
I'm hoping the owners get most of the small things they want. I hated the last CBA. UFAs at 25-27 is retarded. When you draft a good player, fans should be expected to be able to see him play in his prime longer not spend a whole bunch of time through the baby steps and see the player leave if the grass is greener. Especially for Goalies and Dmen who take longer to develop in general.

Ahh the good old days of teams being assured of keeping players up to 31.

But I assume that this is not gonna be a deal breaker for the owners ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeThreeKings View Post
The entry level deal will not work, that one is guaranteed. 3 years is the perfect amount.
The UFA age should be 30. Teams should be allowed to keep who they drafted and developed through their prime years.
They need to close the NCAA loop-hole.
5 or 7 year cap on contracts.
As a fan that's what we want for the good of the game but the owners and players don't really care about that unfortunately.

Fact is that for every player that leaves a team during his prime years... another team actually signed that player. So one team's loss is another team's gain. Owners won't fight the players on UFA age I believe. Of course this blows for the fans.

Des Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:07 AM
  #44
Belso
Registered User
 
Belso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,699
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
What I hate them most are no trade clauses. Teams who struggle for some time and try and make the play-offs like Montreal and Toronto have a hard time drafting high.. So they draft 10-16 on average. So then they try and get better through free agency and players don't want to come as much to teams who struggle for long periods of time. So then the teams can try trading for a super star but then the players use their no trade or limited trade clause to veto being traded to those teams.. Like how the hell are you supposed to get a super star on your team other than pure fluke????

Belso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:08 AM
  #45
BaseballCoach
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,123
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
So for all those saying it's a negotiating tactic, and that you start low, and that this is some clever ploy by Bettman, would you be saying the same thing if Fehr made just as ridiculous an offer? Or would you be howling in outrage? Imagine if Fehr and the NHLPA made this offer

* An increase in players share to 65%

* UFA at 24

* Increase ELC by 50%

* Minimum contract length must be three years

* Mandatory signing bonuses equivalent to 5% of every contract

* No trade clauses for every player

Would everybody be sitting there saying "oh, it's just initial offer, nothing to worry about?" Of course not. It would be a stupid offer, just like this is a stupid offer. This is all about breaking the union again, so these billionaires can claim yet another victory. Has nothing to do with the good of the game, in any way, shape or form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORiculous View Post

I'm thinking that some of those points are not so important for the owners and thus they can be "removed" for the begociation as a barganing point.

That being said, I would classify the demands into two groups.

1. 46%

2. The rest of the demands which are only ways to help manage.

I'm guessing that all the points under #2 can be conceded, to a point, in order to maintain point #1.

Of course, the NHL will try to keep as much points in #2 that they can during the process.
I agree that in the end, the percentage matters by far the most; the rest is about fairness BETWEEN players, which owners should be not that concerned about, as it is the union's job, and about ease of management, which the union should not be difficult about if they get their main points at an acceptably good ratio.

My suggestions:

No change in definition of revenue. 54% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now, 8.4% rollback, cap for 2012-13 to be the same as in 2011-2012 ($64.3M). Any future drop in the cap of more than 5% would be accompanied by a proportional rollback. No change to floor rules.

Max length of contracts 6 years till age 31, 5 years at age 32, 4 years at age 33 and up. The full cap hit rule will apply on any contract in its THIRD year or later to ANY player who is age 37 or older

Salary must be the same every year and equal to cap hit

Maximum signing bonus 10% of total contracted salary; charged to salary cap the day it is paid

Options are permitted, but only where the option period plus the contract period do not exceed the maximum contract period; teams can have options to continue at same or higher salary; players can have options to continue at same or lesser salary. Cap hits will be according to salary during the year in question if the option is exercised.

Arbitration unchanged

Entry level contract remains 3 years, but clubs can obtain an extra year of waiver exemption if the player has played at least 20 NHL games or at least 10 NHL games in the last year of his ELC, but in all cases less than the maximum number of games permitted before waiver rights kick in.

You need to be in the NHL 9 years or be 28 years old before unrestricted free agency...

Contracts remain guaranteed, buyout percentage reduced to 50% from 66.67%

Over 35 rules will apply only to the third or later years of the contract, instead of 2nd year or later now.

A new provision will be added, that a team trading a player may choose to pay up to 50% of his salary and have it charged to their cap instead of the new club's cap.


Last edited by BaseballCoach: 07-14-2012 at 09:16 AM.
BaseballCoach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:09 AM
  #46
Gates70
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
I never understood how the players can dictate how the league is gonna be run. What happened to the days of I pay you the millions so **** and just play the game. Does the owner of any other business let the employees dictate how it's going to go ? Sorry I just don't understand all this.

Gates70 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:14 AM
  #47
PunkinDrublic*
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sutton,Qc-Sudbury,On
Posts: 8,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABsurde View Post
From Renaud Lavoie Twitter

leagues request

46% of revenue to the players instead of 57% right now

max length of contracts 5 years

no more arbitration

entry level contract 5 years instead of 3

you need to be in the NHL 10 years before free agency...

if there is any truth to this, we may look at hard hard negociations...
I don't think there will be a lock out.
Bettman already is having problems with at least 7 hockey markets in the US.
If anything they will play this upcomming season, using the old CBA until the new one is rectified.

PunkinDrublic* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:19 AM
  #48
bcv
My french sucks.
 
bcv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gates70 View Post
I never understood how the players can dictate how the league is gonna be run. What happened to the days of I pay you the millions so **** and just play the game. Does the owner of any other business let the employees dictate how it's going to go ? Sorry I just don't understand all this.
Because, the owners are the products and it's not other way around

The players can do whatever they want. No players, no money, it's that simple. They just want a fair share, and rightly so.

bcv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:22 AM
  #49
Player 61
#Winning
 
Player 61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,167
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Player 61
Hey if The NHL wants 2004 all over again..so be it! Will spend more time with Girlfriend & the Labrador Dog! I'll watch NBA like I did in 2004. As a Montreal person, we already lost the Expos, if they don't want to play, then eff them! They make more than enough! It's not the end of the world!

Player 61 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2012, 09:23 AM
  #50
Gates70
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcv View Post
Because, the owners are the products and it's not other way around

The players can do whatever they want. No players, no money, it's that simple. They just want a fair share, and rightly so.
You're talking as if they get paid $50k a year. The worst player gets paid $500k or so. I think "the product", especially these guys that get the millions are well paid for their "product". Give me a break

Gates70 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 05:13 PM.

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.