HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Ottawa Senators
Notices

Around the NHL XIX | Back in action! | Next Game: @ Jets, 3pm

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 06:30 PM
  #301
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emerica View Post
Option 3 is not nearly as simple as you think it is.
Never said it was simple, nor did I suggest overall it was greater that 50/50.

However the owners signed mutliple of these deals over the summer creating a problem, $200M of the $650M by one owner.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:34 PM
  #302
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Roffler View Post
I find it kind of funny how Doan says he will only play for Phoenix, its home and all that stuff but than demands a CBA that will cause Phoenix to either fold or be relocated.
Phoenix won't fold or relocate due to anything the players have propose so far.

If Phoenix was to fold or relocate it would be for the same reason it has lost ~$50M a year... insufficient fan interest.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 06:58 PM
  #303
DJB
Sens best prospect
 
DJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,764
vCash: 700
Ugh, this is making me sick. And this getting together for an hour at a time BS has got to stop. Give a little take a little.

The formal proposals being sent back and forth are taking far too long for the two to come to an agreement. Informal proposals sent back and forth face to face until and agreement is reached would get ti done quicker.

DJB is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:19 PM
  #304
God Says No
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,050
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJB View Post
Ugh, this is making me sick. And this getting together for an hour at a time BS has got to stop. Give a little take a little.

The formal proposals being sent back and forth are taking far too long for the two to come to an agreement. Informal proposals sent back and forth face to face until and agreement is reached would get ti done quicker.
agreed. they should be locked up for hours during the day, and can only come out if they agreed on any points in the deal.

God Says No is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:19 PM
  #305
DylanSensFan
Walk On!
 
DylanSensFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,483
vCash: 1470
I thought this last owners proposal was pretty reasonable and I am on the players side. THEY ALL NEED TO GET IT DONE!!!

DylanSensFan is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 07:40 PM
  #306
Northern Neighbour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
The two sides should try to find a compromise. One idea is to put the cap at the 2011-12 level of $64.3M for 2012-13, but allowing teams to go to $70M without penalty.

In future years, the cap stays at $64.3M until the revenue split reaches 50/50, at which time the cap will then increase should revenues continue to increase.

Northern Neighbour is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:10 PM
  #307
QuietOnTheFront
@QuietOnTheFront
 
QuietOnTheFront's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,503
vCash: 500
Pierre LeBrun tweeted this minutes ago..

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/i...e-as-they-look

At this point I'm weary of giving in to any optimism, but this is definitely interesting.

QuietOnTheFront is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:19 PM
  #308
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: uOttawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,640
vCash: 2391
Compromise time:

League and PA agree to split the difference. Take the 13% of player salaries that'll be over the 50% HRR mark. Divide that in half; one half is included in the 50-50% calculation going forward, and the other half isn't.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 08:39 PM
  #309
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
players more or less agree to '50-50' eventually. Still dont agree on definition of HRR.

owners agree revenue sharing should be increased (not as much as the players would like).

both sides agree that existing contracts should be paid out in full (on the expectation of what their value would be at 57% of HRR). Do not agree how to fund that.

My proposal would be to take the nhl's latest proposal and instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have them come out of a new fund funded entirely by the top-10 revenue teams (based on their proportion of revenue above the 11th). I think thats enough to get the players to agree to HRR definition and contracting changes.

__________________
RIP Kev.
danishh is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:37 AM
  #310
Polakdave
Official Sens' Polak
 
Polakdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Poland
Posts: 2,264
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Polakdave Send a message via MSN to Polakdave Send a message via Yahoo to Polakdave
Why don't they just treat all current contracts as if the old CBA still existed, and all new contracts signed are effected by the new CBA. Seems fair to me

Polakdave is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:58 AM
  #311
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
players more or less agree to '50-50' eventually. Still dont agree on definition of HRR.

owners agree revenue sharing should be increased (not as much as the players would like).

both sides agree that existing contracts should be paid out in full (on the expectation of what their value would be at 57% of HRR). Do not agree how to fund that.

My proposal would be to take the nhl's latest proposal and instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have them come out of a new fund funded entirely by the top-10 revenue teams (based on their proportion of revenue above the 11th). I think thats enough to get the players to agree to HRR definition and contracting changes.
A potential problem with this idea, the same ten teams are being asked to contribute (wrong info the full $200M) at least $100M to Revenue Sharing.

Honestly I don't believe they are that far apart, the only thing that seems really contentious is the process to get to the 50/50 split.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 10-19-2012 at 02:45 PM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:58 AM
  #312
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
players more or less agree to '50-50' eventually. Still dont agree on definition of HRR.

owners agree revenue sharing should be increased (not as much as the players would like).

both sides agree that existing contracts should be paid out in full (on the expectation of what their value would be at 57% of HRR). Do not agree how to fund that.

My proposal would be to take the nhl's latest proposal and instead of having the 'make-whole' payments come out of the players share, have them come out of a new fund funded entirely by the top-10 revenue teams (based on their proportion of revenue above the 11th). I think thats enough to get the players to agree to HRR definition and contracting changes.
Beautiful.

Flamingo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 09:59 AM
  #313
Flamingo
Registered User
 
Flamingo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 3,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
A potential problem with this idea, the same ten teams are being asked to contribute the full $200M for the Revenue Sharing.

Honestly I don't believe they are that far apart, the only thing that seems really contentious is the process to get to the 50/50 split.
So phase in the revenue sharing from Keep-Whole to actual revenue sharing over the first year (or two if needed).

Flamingo is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:01 AM
  #314
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolkaDave View Post
Why don't they just treat all current contracts as if the old CBA still existed, and all new contracts signed are effected by the new CBA. Seems fair to me
Effectively option 3 proposed by the NHLPA.

Daly claimed that option would cost the NHL $690M over 3 years, though the math doesn't really appear to support his claim.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:02 AM
  #315
WantEggRoll
Registered User
 
WantEggRoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 177
Thing I still don't understand is whether or not the contract amount is tied to the percentage of revenue that the players get?

If it is tied to the revenue then the players are still getting the contract's "full value". Unfortunately that value has simply fallen due to the new percentage share the players receive under the new CBA. That is something they would've known when they signed the deal, and therefore they shouldn't be complaining about it. Now if their contracts have nothing to do with their share of revenues then you have a completely different story.

WantEggRoll is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:15 AM
  #316
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
So phase in the revenue sharing from Keep-Whole to actual revenue sharing over the first year (or two if needed).
According to Pierre McGuire 17 of the 30 teams made money last season. So the owners have to decide if they want to jeopardize, not only a growing business, but a growing number of stabilizing franchises to get to 50/50 today versus a phased approach over three years.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:34 AM
  #317
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantEggRoll View Post
Thing I still don't understand is whether or not the contract amount is tied to the percentage of revenue that the players get?

If it is tied to the revenue then the players are still getting the contract's "full value". Unfortunately that value has simply fallen due to the new percentage share the players receive under the new CBA. That is something they would've known when they signed the deal, and therefore they shouldn't be complaining about it. Now if their contracts have nothing to do with their share of revenues then you have a completely different story.
TODAY:
At the aggregate level players cannot receive more than 57% of HRR, at the franchise level no team is allowed to exceed the cap ceiling ($70.2M) and at the player level, no player is allowed to make more than 20% of the upper limit of the cap.

Players aren't guaranteed the face value of their contracts, as escrow is applied to withhold a percentage until league revenues are audited and finalized.

So if players share drops from 57% to 50% it translates into a shortfall on existing player contracts of ~$231M this season. This would mean all players salaries would have to be reduced by ~12%.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 10-19-2012 at 10:50 AM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:49 AM
  #318
WantEggRoll
Registered User
 
WantEggRoll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
TODAY:
At the aggregate level players cannot receive more than 57% of HRR, at the franchise level no team is allowed to exceed the cap ceiling ($70.2M) and at the player level, no player is allowed to make more than 20% of the upper limit of the cap.

Players aren't guaranteed the face value of their contracts, as escrow is applied to withhold a percentage until league revenues are audited and finalized.

So if players share drops from 57% to 50% it translates into a shortfall on existing player contracts of ~$231M this season.
So essentially they aren't really "not honouring" the contracts they signed. Unless the contract actually references the 57% and not just CBA determined percentage these guys have little to complain about. Yes it sucks to have your percentage lowered, but the owners are hardly welching on contracts they signed at that point.

WantEggRoll is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 10:54 AM
  #319
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WantEggRoll View Post
So essentially they aren't really "not honouring" the contracts they signed. Unless the contract actually references the 57% and not just CBA determined percentage these guys have little to complain about.
This is the players fundamental issue ATM.

The SPC does not refer to percentages, it is contained in the CBA if you wish to verify.

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 11:30 AM
  #320
danishh
Dat Stache
 
danishh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: mtl/ott/somewhere
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,654
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdurbreathe View Post
A potential problem with this idea, the same ten teams are being asked to contribute the full $200M for the Revenue Sharing.

Honestly I don't believe they are that far apart, the only thing that seems really contentious is the process to get to the 50/50 split.
No they arnt, they're being asked to contribute between 50% of the revenue sharing and whatever the total from escrow refund and central playoff revenues is. That's only slightly more money than they currently contribute (at least 1/3 of 150m)

danishh is offline  
Old
10-19-2012, 02:30 PM
  #321
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danishh View Post
No they arnt, they're being asked to contribute between 50% of the revenue sharing and whatever the total from escrow refund and central playoff revenues is. That's only slightly more money than they currently contribute (at least 1/3 of 150m)
At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-l...ses_cba_offer/

Now I am not sure if that's what you meant, if so all is good

This is not a good day, making too many mistakes, like my $200M number. It should have read $100M at least.


Last edited by Holdurbreathe: 10-19-2012 at 02:50 PM.
Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 03:57 PM
  #322
aragorn
YES WE CAN
 
aragorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Country: Azores
Posts: 10,777
vCash: 500
Ottawa Rebel

aragorn is offline  
Old
10-20-2012, 04:10 PM
  #323
Holdurbreathe
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
So phase in the revenue sharing from Keep-Whole to actual revenue sharing over the first year (or two if needed).
Not sure the Make-Whole provision has anything to do with the owner's sharing their revenue.

The Make-Whole provision seems to be coming from the players share.

http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2012...ovision-orwell

Holdurbreathe is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:33 AM
  #324
OgieO
Registered User
 
OgieO's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Islanders appear to be moving to Brooklyn, NY. That's technically still apart of Long Island so probably no name change.

Good for them to get a new home. Badly needed. This could be a huge boost for that franchise

OgieO is offline  
Old
10-24-2012, 09:48 AM
  #325
Milan the God*
king karlsson
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,806
vCash: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by OgieO View Post
Islanders appear to be moving to Brooklyn, NY. That's technically still apart of Long Island so probably no name change.

Good for them to get a new home. Badly needed. This could be a huge boost for that franchise
Yep. They're going in 2015.

Milan the God* 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 11:14 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.