Umm....this Tweet from Kyper seems to indicate otherwise
The NHL's offer moves closer and closer to that 50% mark while the NHLPA hasn't moved from their initial offer of 57% at all, the only thing that's changed is the term.
The NHL's offer moves closer and closer to that 50% mark while the NHLPA hasn't moved from their initial offer of 57% at all, the only thing that's changed is the term.
I understand where you're coming from there, but there's also no reason for the Owners to refuse to negotiate other areas of a new CBA.
It's becoming clearer and clearer that it is the NHLPA that is blocking progress. Not presenting an offer until August, not having budged in any significant way with less than a week to go. The players want this lockout and they made that choice when they got Donald Fehr.
They shouldn't have to budge though if the premise of them budging (teams losing $ when they're really not) is flawed.
If I were a PA member, I wouldn't budge off 57% either UNTIL the NHL was willing to increase revenue sharing via richer clubs giving to the bottom 10-12.
People today turned against the PA I noticed. I hope this time though with Fehr in charge, they won't bend over like the last time and not care about public opinion. In fact their initial offer was flawed. They should've done what the NHL did, make an unreasonable initial offer and then come down to 57% with the revenue sharing added proposal. Then we'd be saying the opposite.
They shouldn't have to budge though if the premise of them budging (teams losing $ when they're really not) is flawed.
If I were a PA member, I wouldn't budge off 57% either UNTIL the NHL was willing to increase revenue sharing via richer clubs giving to the bottom 10-12.
People today turned against the PA I noticed. I hope this time though with Fehr in charge, they won't bend over like the last time and not care about public opinion. In fact their initial offer was flawed. They should've done what the NHL did, make an unreasonable initial offer and then come down to 57% with the revenue sharing added proposal. Then we'd be saying the opposite.
Players make much more money on average now compared to before the last lockout. If that was them bending over, I don't dare to think what them winning would look like.
Players make much more money on average now compared to before the last lockout. If that was them bending over, I don't dare to think what them winning would look like.
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm still on the NHLPA's side on this one.
The owners made a ridiculous initial offer, so that each time they made a "concession" they would be looked upon as "attempting to negotiate".
And if, after having Bettman tout the financial success of the league OVER AND OVER again since this past CBA went into effect in the 04-05 season, the owners feel they have to "blow up" the current model and re-start because of "Financial Viability" (aka team health sustainability) then WHY are the owners refusing to put in a Revenue Sharing system?
Both sides are to blame here, but if I'm "taking the lesser of the two evils" then I'm siding with the NHLPA
I agree with what you're saying, but I'm still on the NHLPA's side on this one.
The owners made a ridiculous initial offer, so that each time they made a "concession" they would be looked upon as "attempting to negotiate".
And if, after having Bettman tout the financial success of the league OVER AND OVER again since this past CBA went into effect in the 04-05 season, the owners feel they have to "blow up" the current model and re-start because of "Financial Viability" (aka team health sustainability) then WHY are the owners refusing to put in a Revenue Sharing system?
Both sides are to blame here, but if I'm "taking the lesser of the two evils" then I'm siding with the NHLPA
No doubt the first proposal from NHL was absurd and insulting. But the NHLPA not wanting to negotiate until the CBA is about to expire and then as it turns out not being willing to negotiate at all is even more insulting.
Hockey players aren't the sharpest items in the cutlery drawer but if they managed to operate a pocket calculator they will soon figure out that each month without a paycheck is worth about 2% of what they are bickering about. Early January, even if they by some miracle get the 57% of HRR they dream about (assuming a six year CBA), the lost paychecks means it's really only 51% HRR had they started the season on time.
There is no way the players will win this. The question is how much damage they will manage to do to themselves, hockey and the league before they lose their resolve.
Players make much more money on average now compared to before the last lockout.
True but so do the owners. The ones in profitable places at least. The other ones have had restrictions placed on themselves causing them to either lose $ (or just be in a bad location to make it).
If a business does poorly with its assets then it's unreasonable to expect them to amend it by cutting everyone's salary despite those everyone's being on a contract.
Let's say they really are earning $3.3 B. They cut that down so that the players are getting 52-55% of that. The remainder is more than enough to cover the losses of the teams who are actually losing especially if they drop their own cap floor and still have enough left over for a smaller profit for other teams. Now if the owners are unhappy that their profit has decreased then fix your own yard in terms of the ones that are losing $ and relying too much on rev sharing rather than taking a slice out of the other side's pie.
And it's not all about lost paychecks. Just because they'd end up with more $ in the end by having a full season at 49% doesn't mean they should take it. People value fairness, if they feel that they're being treated unfairly and have the option to decline then why wouldn't they exercise it?
I agree the NHLPA's offer is more flawed in terms of not being willing to take a cut but at least the premise isn't flawed. Maybe they'll show a willingness to take a cut once the NHL puts together a CBA where the so called "problem teams" are fixed with the help of other clubs rather than just cutting into the player salaries.
The NHL's offer moves closer and closer to that 50% mark while the NHLPA hasn't moved from their initial offer of 57% at all, the only thing that's changed is the term.
That's not exactly true. The PA's offer reduced the cut to 54% in the first three years, with an option year to return to 57%.
And I'm not sure if I completely understand this tweet from Gulitti
Quote:
Tom Gulitti @TGfireandice
Fehr said in NHLPA offer, assuming HRR growth based on avg. over last 10 years, player share would drop from 57% to 54.3 to 52.5, 52.0, 52.3
If I'm understanding that as I believe I am, then that means the NHLPA moved off of their 57% of HRR, the reductions are quite significant there.
I don't really give a **** who gets what tbh (would side with the players though) because as a fan, the main thing that matters is the cap. I don't want the cap to go down to $55 M or some other low number. I want it to be in 65-80 so we can see better players being retained by the NHL and high end teams like before but with parity at the same time. I don't care if 5-10 teams are perpetually bad, that's the norm in most sports leagues. I don't want a team like Chicago in 09-10 getting gutted due to the cap.
It is possible to maintain the salary cap ceiling regardless of a drop in HRR%. It would just be boring to come back from this and have a lower cap, the amount of good players lost to European leagues the last time because of the $38 M cap was ridiculous and even when it went up, so many of them never returned due to those European leagues growing comfortable and NHL teams budgeting that $ towards their own young players rather than trying on European ones.
Then I guess it's like the salary cap the Owners fought so much to get, the cap will go down if revenues go down.
I mean that if the cap will go down, the NHLPA offer won't have the players making 52%. It's only if the league has record growth they would be willing to settle for that.
So that quote is designed to mislead us. I don't think anyone expects the NHL revenues to grow as much in the coming ten years as it has the past ten years.
If the players are willing to settle for ~53% no matter what and the league are willing to settle for ~48% no matter what today, there would be no lockout. Then the sides would be reasonably close to each other.
I mean that if the cap will go down, the NHLPA offer won't have the players making 52%. It's only if the league has record growth they would be willing to settle for that.
So that quote is designed to mislead us. I don't think anyone expects the NHL revenues to grow as much in the coming ten years as it has the past ten years.
If the players are willing to settle for ~53% no matter what and the league are willing to settle for ~48% no matter what today, there would be no lockout. Then the sides would be reasonably close to each other.
Agreed...I just re-read my response, and I meant to say that it looks like it would be SIMILAR to the cap in the last CBA, meaning it goes up or down based on revenues.
I think we're all just stressing out because we're realizing that hockey will be delayed to start the season.
I for one am REAL bummed because I had tickets to the Avs/Rangers pre-season game in KC on 10/6
Then I guess it's like the salary cap the Owners fought so much to get, the cap will go down if revenues go down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian
I mean that if the cap will go down, the NHLPA offer won't have the players making 52%. It's only if the league has record growth they would be willing to settle for that.
So that quote is designed to mislead us. I don't think anyone expects the NHL revenues to grow as much in the coming ten years as it has the past ten years.
If the players are willing to settle for ~53% no matter what and the league are willing to settle for ~48% no matter what today, there would be no lockout. Then the sides would be reasonably close to each other.
Unless the cap system was among the small changes made to the PA's offer today, I don't believe the cap could go down under the PA's offer, but I could be wrong. Their offer de-linked the cap from HRR and set a fixed increase of a couple percentage points a year.
I've been pretty quiet on the subject of the lockout, mainly I was holding out that the players/owners weren't stupid enough to put this sport through another lockout but now its looking like they are this dumb.
A lockout will cripple this sport, I'm going to be bold and say to the point of no return. The NHL is not like the NFL or the NBA where the fans will come back gradually. USA fans aren't going to flock back this time to a sport that has had 2 lockouts in less than 10 years. So all the good that they've done since the last lockout will be wiped out and I'm not sure they will recover.
That being said, the more this drags on I'm starting to find myself siding with the owners. At first I supported the players, but its becoming more and more clear that they are not willing to compromise. They are led by a stubborn ass (Fehr), who keeps trying to say all the right things to try to make the public think the owners are being to hard to work with, when in actuality the players are the ones making it impossible to negotiate.
Every time the owners put forth a new proposal they bring it closer to the middle. They started high but have shown that they are willing to make some compromises. The player keep demanding the same damn 57%. Name one other sport where the players get 57%, you can't because that is absurd.
I don't blame the owners for not wanting to discuss other aspects of a deal, because lets face it those are minor issues compared to the money. The owners are treating it like business solve the big problem then smaller ones will fall into place. Where the players and their fearless leader are looking more and more incompetent everyday.
But don't get me wrong the whole lockout thing is absurd you have a bunch of 1%ers crying poor me. Yes both players and owners are 1%ers. The whole thing is insane to me, they act like their lives are so tough and they are totally getting screwed by the other side, when in the real world they all have totally sweet lives. As a person that lives in the real world it kind of pisses me off, because I work hard and get paid minimally but I don't ***** about it I just go do my job and am thankful I have the opportunity to make some money. And if I hate my job or my employer, its up to me to go change it and get a different job. I don't get to go on strike. All I can say to the players is man up, you have an awesome job and you get paid excessively well. And to the owners don't play the I'm poor/losing money BS, no matter what you are still a 1%er, enjoy that.
They shouldn't have to budge though if the premise of them budging (teams losing $ when they're really not) is flawed.
If I were a PA member, I wouldn't budge off 57% either UNTIL the NHL was willing to increase revenue sharing via richer clubs giving to the bottom 10-12.
People today turned against the PA I noticed. I hope this time though with Fehr in charge, they won't bend over like the last time and not care about public opinion. In fact their initial offer was flawed. They should've done what the NHL did, make an unreasonable initial offer and then come down to 57% with the revenue sharing added proposal. Then we'd be saying the opposite.
Exactly!
It shows NHLPA is responsible and not out to change anything that works. Now, NHL...SHARE THE DAMN PROFIT!! A top 100 list of persons earning money from NHL hockey would turn the sympathies towards the artists. I bet there are quite a few making at least five times more than Sid Kid. NHL is all about increasing the value of the "share" or the "option". Sharing profits among clubs are far from the top of their agenda. An "internet"-NHL (that will become real some day) with clear rules for the long future should always attract owners. New owners, because the ones we have suck.
I really think the lack of movement in negotiations has a lot to do with Bettmans initial offer. It was a ridiculous offer that he hoped they would use as a starting point in negotiations, but that would have lead to the players getting screwed again.
It forced the PA to take a hardline stance of their own, and the league is just now making realistic offers hoping to move the process along, but it might be too late.
Let's just throw the dmen under the bus. Face it, they're the minority so they'd lose a PA vote. Let's use replacement dmen cut the % number down to 50% and the remaining fwds and goalies would actually get a raise anyways. Put in some CHL dmen in there, watch goals per game sky-rocket. I mean who doesn't wanna see Tavares deking and making two amateur dmen look stupid? Everyone wins. Duchene could probably set a spin-o-rama per season record.
From PuckDaddy, what Shanahan is talking about in 94 sounds familiar. NHL crying poor, same excuse different yr.
