After a four-hour break, the Fehrs returned, with the intrigue of being accompanied by three players. They were Mathieu Darche, Douglas Murray and Ron Hainsey. None in the players' party commented as they entered the building.
Rumblings sound like it is based on the framework of the NHLPA's counter proposal... not sure what that means but I'm sure this evening there will be pieces leaked out via twitter.
Maybe this is the start of something good? It sounds like there are players heading to New York for tomorrow morning so this can be a good thing (or a bad thing). I like to keep things positive.
I think the lack of details that are leaking out is a positive sign. When both sides put forth their original ideas the details were out almost immediately. Now it looks as though a clamp is being put on the pipeline. Good news I think.
Don't see the players accepting this. It may eventually come to this, to get a season in, but i don't see the players even remotely agreeing to this proposal right now. They're focused on revenue sharing, to increase the spending power of the teams, not going backwards.
Don't see the players accepting this. It may eventually come to this, to get a season in, but i don't see the players even remotely agreeing to this proposal right now. They're focused on revenue sharing, to increase the spending power of the teams, not going backwards.
I see a lockout ahead.
The owners were always going to get 50% all the other leagues got 50%. This is far better then the NHL'a original proposal and there is room to negotiate off of this most notably on what constitutes hockey related revenue. The players can also negotiate in a stronger revenue sharing plan. The players wont accept this but they would be wise to work off this framework for their next proposal. They can also negotiate in things like amnesty buy outs and other means so that they arn't hit hard with escrow.
I think the one thing that will stop this from going through is the precise definition of HRR is. The league wants to change that.
Nope, the PLAYERS want to change it. They feel it does not include many things that should be included as HRR. It's been a sore spot for the union for years.
EDIT: Reviewing some info from the latest offer, it appears the league has proposed a change in the definition of HRR to improve it for them. That will not go over well, and is a part of why this latest offer is not nearly as good as it appears on the surface.
But progress is being made, I am still hoping we will have season openers no later than November 1, hopefully at least a 76 game schedule (crosses fingers).
__________________
2012 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS LA KINGS!!! GO JETS GO!
Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 08-29-2012 at 06:44 AM.
Nope, the PLAYERS want to change it. They feel it does not include many things that should be included as HRR. It's been a sore spot for the union for years.
EDIT: Reviewing some info from the latest offer, it appears the league has proposed a change in the definition of HRR to improve it for them. That will not go over well, and is a part of why this latest offer is not nearly as good as it appears on the surface.
But progress is being made, I am still hoping we will have season openers no later than November 1, hopefully at least a 76 game schedule (crosses fingers).
Im optimistic. The nhls come up very quickly.
I wouldnt be suprised if the change in hrr is a sacrificial lamb, something the nhl is presenting with the express purpose of conceding for leverage elsewhere.
Best case scenario for Winnipeg....is that the players settle for 50/50 split....but force the owners into real and substantial revenue sharing.....and last but not least make it a 10 year deal so we don't have to go through this every 4 years
We will know allot more when we see the PA's counter to this latest proposal. Remember the NHL owners are not be expecting the players to accept this offer!!!! If the players counter in a timely fashion then perhaps things are not as bleak as they were looking before yesterday. The thing I am most focused on now is the rhythm between the two parties, if we see that pace accelerate it is a good sign. A counter by the PA before the weekend would be a very positive sign although I am not expecting it for at least a week.
We will know allot more when we see the PA's counter to this latest proposal. Remember the NHL owners are not be expecting the players to accept this offer!!!! If the players counter in a timely fashion then perhaps things are not as bleak as they were looking before yesterday. The thing I am most focused on now is the rhythm between the two parties, if we see that pace accelerate it is a good sign. A counter by the PA before the weekend would be a very positive sign although I am not expecting it for at least a week.
Dunno, there are a lot of pedicures, massages, and lattes to be had by both sides, while they rest in their 5-star hotels, before any counter offers can be made. I wouldn't count on a timely fashion, its not like they care two-***** about the fans or anything.
Dunno, there are a lot of pedicures, massages, and lattes to be had by both sides, while they rest in their 5-star hotels, before any counter offers can be made. I wouldn't count on a timely fashion, its not like they care two-***** about the fans or anything.
... is my take on the whole affair.
Almost everyone on the planet takes care of themselves first. I think both sides get how important the fans are but every time a CBA negociation happens they crystalize where we stand in the pecking order.
Any word on where the cap floor sits with the new proposal by the league? I thought the NHL was pushing for a floor calculated as a percentage, not the $16 mill less than ceiling figure. Curious to see where that goes as a high floor has forced teams to spend, where they wouldn't have otherwise. That would be something, as a player, I wouldn't want to see changed.
And, if they went to about a 50/50 split and cap ceiling for 2012/13 was around $58 mill, 1/2 the teams are currently over the cap ceiling - with some RFA's still to sign. I'd bet the final deal is a more phased in reduction - year 1-55%, year 2 -53%, year 3 - 51%, year 4 to 6/7- 50%, etc. That allows teams to manage their roster a bit moving forward, and as HRR grows, the spending on players overall isn't reduced as drastically.
The thing I can't get wrapped around my head is... If league revenues continue to increase, say at 4% annually, after 7 yrs, league revenues would be approaching $5 billion and the cap (even at 50%) would be creeping up to $85 mill/team. At current %'s, it would be close to $95 million per team.
Does the NHLPA believe that the majority of teams can afford that, no, they likely don't hence the revenue sharing focus. But for markets like Winnipeg - a well managed team, in a hockey crazy market that sells out its small arena at very high prices - that's a pretty steep cost. They likely will never spend to the ceiling, I realize, but that's an extremely high operating cost. I like the players, but I hope the league "wins" this CBA negotiation and reduces player costs dramatically.
Any word on where the cap floor sits with the new proposal by the league? I thought the NHL was pushing for a floor calculated as a percentage, not the $16 mill less than ceiling figure. Curious to see where that goes as a high floor has forced teams to spend, where they wouldn't have otherwise. That would be something, as a player, I wouldn't want to see changed.
And, if they went to about a 50/50 split and cap ceiling for 2012/13 was around $58 mill, 1/2 the teams are currently over the cap ceiling - with some RFA's still to sign. I'd bet the final deal is a more phased in reduction - year 1-55%, year 2 -53%, year 3 - 51%, year 4 to 6/7- 50%, etc. That allows teams to manage their roster a bit moving forward, and as HRR grows, the spending on players overall isn't reduced as drastically.
I agree.
My assumption that the biggest issue for the owners was not the cap number as an absolute. But that they had problems with how the cap number is calculated from overall league revenue, and how it didn't work for teams that were not growing at the same rate as the league average.
Something needs to address that IMO. Whether that is achieved with a combination of revenue sharing and a recalculation on how the cap is derived, I don't know.
The thing I can't get wrapped around my head is... If league revenues continue to increase, say at 4% annually, after 7 yrs, league revenues would be approaching $5 billion and the cap (even at 50%) would be creeping up to $85 mill/team. At current %'s, it would be close to $95 million per team.
Does the NHLPA believe that the majority of teams can afford that, no, they likely don't hence the revenue sharing focus. But for markets like Winnipeg - a well managed team, in a hockey crazy market that sells out its small arena at very high prices - that's a pretty steep cost. They likely will never spend to the ceiling, I realize, but that's an extremely high operating cost. I like the players, but I hope the league "wins" this CBA negotiation and reduces player costs dramatically.
It's almost like they're putting a band aid on a cut that actually requires stitches. Sooner later the band aid gives way and you need a new one. I can't help but think that in 7yrs we'll be in the exact same situation that we are right now...except with a Stanley cup().
I'd like them to fix the problem as opposed to putting it off again. I guess that's where revenue sharing comes in.
I just think that there should be something else done to keep the cost down, like a fixed cap or something.
