Where did you read that? All I saw was one tweet saying that the NHLPA proposed some sort of cap, followed by a few posters speculating as to what that would include. If I missed something legitimate, please point me to it.
If the season started in January, and we ended up winning the cup, it wouldn't feel sufficient. I would rather lose an entire season than play a half assed 35-40 game season. **** that.
Either we start games on October 12, or this league can go **** itself.
I get what you're saying. I'm guessing it'll be the satisfaction of winning the Cup with the whole grind of 82 games and the team perservering through that and the playoffs to win the Cup is what you mean.
But, everybody plays the same amount so it's fair. The playoffs will be the same whether there's a 30 game regular season or an 82.
Look at the bright side--if there is a lockout shortened season and the Rangers win it all, they will be a lot more fresh to defend their championship. There is a real hangover from playing over upwards/over 100 games.
Look at the bright side--if there is a lockout shortened season and the Rangers win it all, they will be a lot more fresh to defend their championship. There is a real hangover from playing over upwards/over 100 games.
On the flip side, a shortened season will mean a more condensed schedule with a lot of back to backs and 3 in 4 days type scenario. Could wind up being just as tired when it's all said and done.
On the flip side, a shortened season will mean a more condensed schedule with a lot of back to backs and 3 in 4 days type scenario. Could wind up being just as tired when it's all said and done.
Well look at the bright side, they should be fully recouped from last seasons grind.
On the flip side, a shortened season will mean a more condensed schedule with a lot of back to backs and 3 in 4 days type scenario. Could wind up being just as tired when it's all said and done.
Don't see how the season will be condensed even more than this year (look at the schedule in March and April). And the fear of failing boot camp will keep the Rangers' players in shape until whenever training camp starts.
And all I was trying to do was be upbeat--there's enough negativity around here.
Don't see how the season will be condensed even more than this year (look at the schedule in March and April). And the fear of failing boot camp will keep the Rangers' players in shape until whenever training camp starts.
And all I was trying to do was be upbeat--there's enough negativity around here.
I'd imagine if the season starts in December or something like that, the NHL will try and make up as much money as they can and play as many games as possible from the start. Also wouldn't shock me to see them playing later into April to do this as well although the current schedule already runs pretty late.
Never know how teams may react to a shortened and/or condensed schedule. Only basis I really have for it of late is the NBA lockout of last season where they were playing a ridiculous amount of games in a short time span and the fatigue and injuries popped up throughout the league. For the Rangers as a team, there are some positives and negatives but I'm not sure if someone can put this case in either category just yet.
And I know you were but I just wanted to point out the condensed schedule thing because I think a lot of people overlook it. It obviously wouldn't be 82 games if there's a lockout but they will most likely try to cram games in.
Every five years or so it seems like the NHL needs a new plan to save itself from itself because it's previous plan to save itself from itself didn't work.
I'd imagine if the season starts in December or something like that, the NHL will try and make up as much money as they can and play as many games as possible from the start. Also wouldn't shock me to see them playing later into April to do this as well although the current schedule already runs pretty late.
Never know how teams may react to a shortened and/or condensed schedule. Only basis I really have for it of late is the NBA lockout of last season where they were playing a ridiculous amount of games in a short time span and the fatigue and injuries popped up throughout the league. For the Rangers as a team, there are some positives and negatives but I'm not sure if someone can put this case in either category just yet.
And I know you were but I just wanted to point out the condensed schedule thing because I think a lot of people overlook it. It obviously wouldn't be 82 games if there's a lockout but they will most likely try to cram games in.
There's just a limit to how many games they can fit--most Arenas have other events scheduled around games (think the Garden has a ton of free dates?), there's travel and the fact that there are rules written into the CBA about rest dates that make it impossible to play more than 3-4 games on average a week. Yes, the season would probably be extended a week or two,but then again to get four rounds of playoffs in before summer really gets under way also provides a natural limit. Last time only part of the season was played, I don't teams traveled out of conference during the season, sure that will probably happen too, if there is a lockout.
No matter how you cut it, a lockout would be bad, bad, bad...
Simmonds has a year left on his contract and he gets a 6 year extension when the NHL has proposed 5 year term limits. The sanctimonious BS is too much.
Snider wants to rollback the $23M he gave Simmonds by $5.5M. Instead of it being $3.84M,it will be $2.9M.
Quote:
Wayne Simmonds received an unexpected surprise very late Wednesday night -- a six-year contract extension worth $23.04 million, a source told CSNPhilly.com. The deal has a cap hit of $3.84 million per year.
And the players should offer contract limits when Bettman's allies can't help themselves.
Snider is balking at sharing more revenue so he gives out a 6 year extension for a player with a season left when Bettman is complaining the PA hasn't given him a reduction on contracts. Why should they?
Quote:
The timing of Simmonds’ extension is certainly interesting.
For one, Simmonds is just 45 days into his negotiating period for an extension, as he has next season remaining on his deal at $2 million. Although this reported new extension will nearly double his salary, there is a strong possibility that with the league’s current labor uncertainty, the new deal could ultimately be worth less.
For instance, the NHL’s original Collective Bargaining Agreement proposal on July 13 - which was finally countered by the NHLPA on Tuesday in Toronto - called for a 24-percent rollback in player salaries. So, if Simmonds signed a $24 million deal, and the NHL gets its way, his new extension is suddenly worth a little more than $18 million. The NHL has also proposed term limits on contracts of 5 years.
This whole thread is too eerily similar to the discussions during the last lockout. I rmember that rollercoaster ride all too well. One minute it seems like progress is made, next thing you know we miss a whole season. It's easy for us as fans to try to act as arbitrators, and come up with our own beliefs about what is fair for both sides.
The truth is, we are fans of hockey, not of labor negotiations! I hate that we are even talking about this. I don't mean that it's not important, but this is a sport for crying out loud. I'd much rather be talking about how many goals Rick Nash is going to score, or who's faster - Hagelin or Kreider. I shouldn't even have to care about the NHL CBA.
The NHL and NHLPA can't even get out of their own way, and as has been echoed here many times - we as fans are the ones who lose.
Considering I don't have the document in front of me, no. But what pieces I have read from journalists non-player spending includes travel expenses, marketing, front office, coaches, trainers etc.
If there's a cap on the actual talent, then it would seem fair to have a cap on these fronts as well regardless of the market you play in.
The players cap doesn't take location into consideration, why should front office, trainers and coaching staff?
Travel is what is it, the teams can't fix geographic locations and as such they HAVE to travel.
Marketing, not sure how capping marketing dollars makes any sense from eithe rsides perspective.
The more marketing you do, the better for the sport as a whole. As such it should equate to MORE revenue for the NHL.
I have a hard time believing that the NHLPA would propose a limit on marketing.
The real problem with the NHL, and most sports is that there are going to be teams that struggle to make a profit and there are going to be teams that can print money. The Owners need to concede that and then concede that they need those smaller market teams healthy and the ONLY way to do that is with a better revenue sharing plan with better oversight to ensure that the shared dollars are being re-invested into the on ice product.
We can't have situations like in MLB where the Florida Marlins were paid in revenue sharing, MORE then they were paying players salaries for the year. That happened twice.
The players are not at fault. The owners are because they do not recognize the fundamental issue that affects the imbalance of the game, or they willfully ignore it.
I agree that some reduction in the dividing of the pie is in order, but anything less than 53% to the players is completely unjust.
The Owners beat the players into submission 6 years ago and got all of the cost certainty they cried they were lacking. So now, here we are with the owners saying "what we took from you then wasn't and isn't enough, we want more"
the owners right now look like a fat person with a turkey under each arm crying that he doesn't have a ham.
If the players are smart, they do not agree to a deal until after January 1st. So that teh NHL HAS to cancel the Winter Classic.
That's alot of lost revenue for the league. NHL owners want to stick it to the players, I say fight fire with fire.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see the season start on time. I want to see the Winter Classic. But I want a fair deal and what teh Owners are doing right now is not fair. Not at all.
Is the 57/43 split of revenues based on the assumption that all teams would spend to the max, which is how the cap limit is reached each year? I would love to analyze the NHL's financials and work out the actuals to find the real split.
The parity in the NHL is great right now, and let's remember Gary getting his cap back in 2005 was a BIG step. The Owners come out with a low ball offer, and then the PA proposes a plan that helps both sides (I understand they might have to meet in the middle somewhere), yet Gary comes out saying the sides are very far apart. Bettman to me is making himself look like a villian here, wish the owners would boot this clown. He's going for the lockout hat trick...
Here's a look at how the salary cap and salary floor would be impacted by the current CBA along with proposals from the NHL and NHL Players' Association for the 2012-13 season (assuming a fixed $16-million gap is kept in place):
Current system
Salary cap: $70.2 million
Salary floor: $54.2 million
NHL's proposal
Salary cap: $55.3 million
Salary floor: $39.3 million
NHLPA's proposal
Salary cap: $69 million
Salary floor: $53 million
Quote:
Under the union's plan, the salary cap would fall at roughly $69 million next season. It would increase to $71 million in 2013-14 and $75 million in 2014-15.
How are teams getting to $55.3M? Rollback salaries?
Bettman is the same assclown who told his teams in May that it was business as usual. The last time the NHL cap was near $55.3M was in 08-09 when it jumped from $50.3M to $56.7M. Its now 12-13.
Is the 57/43 split of revenues based on the assumption that all teams would spend to the max, which is how the cap limit is reached each year? I would love to analyze the NHL's financials and work out the actuals to find the real split.
The parity in the NHL is great right now, and let's remember Gary getting his cap back in 2005 was a BIG step. The Owners come out with a low ball offer, and then the PA proposes a plan that helps both sides (I understand they might have to meet in the middle somewhere), yet Gary comes out saying the sides are very far apart. Bettman to me is making himself look like a villian here, wish the owners would boot this clown. He's going for the lockout hat trick...
pretty sure that 57% is the 'midpoint' and then the cap is +$8 mil, floor is -$8 mil from that point. so if everyone spends to the cap the players will get more than 57%
The players are at 54%. The NHL is offering 46%. Some people say its really 43% with the changes in how HRR is computed. The NHL wants to change the formula.
Quote:
Players are offering 54% share of revenue and NHL at 46% - obvious area of compromise
The players are at 54%. The NHL is offering 46%. Some people say its really 43% with the changes in how HRR is computed. The NHL wants to change the formula.
Fehr reminded the reporters that this is a CBA that the owners insisted on seven years ago, and they did so with the stated expectation that it would fix all the problems.
That is completely true.
In 2005, Bettman stated after the lockout ended, “The CBA signals a new era for our league, an era of economic stability for our franchises. Our foundation for the future now is in place.”
The NHL canceled an entire season for that CBA – the same CBA that the owners now say didn’t fix the problems, the same CBA the owners are now looking to drastically modify. The same folks that are negotiating this CBA are the same folks that canceled an entire season to come up with this alleged flawed CBA.
i know that common sense shouldn't be factors but seems pretty simple to me, nhlpa comes down 4%, owners come up 4% and they meet at 50/50 split
Quote:
Anyway, there’s not a chance in the world the players are going to accept a 46-percent take on revenues. One player-related source told me there’s not a chance they’ll go anywhere below 52 percent.
