It’s clear the fundamental impasse here is that the league/owners want the players to pay back off the top, while the players at this point are only ready to slow down their salary growth moving forward. The league’s last proposal, which would drop players' share from 57 percent of the pie to 46 percent, at least according to the current parameters, would mean big-time escrow payments for the players. The players’ proposal keeps all the present money/salary in the coffers for their side, but promises future stagnation. It’s certainly not enough from the league’s point of view. But there’s a deal to be done here. The fact that NHLPA head Donald Fehr chose to stay within the current system in his first offer was a positive sign in terms of finding common ground. He’s far away from what the league wants, but at least the salary-cap system wasn’t blown up in the NHLPA proposal. To me, the sweet spot is obvious: The league has to come down softer on the entry point of the new CBA, allow the players more breathing room in the transition phase and don’t bend them backward in the first year with massive escrow payments. In other words, I would offer to start this season with a salary cap in the mid-60s, keep the current way of calculating hockey-related revenue, but then phase in lower shares for the players (thus lower cap numbers) in future years. Somewhere, there’s middle ground between where the NHL and NHLPA currently stand. There’s no reason for this thing to go past October, as long as both sides are committed to making a deal.
$64.3M was the upper limit in 11-12. Paul Kelly was on a podcast last night. He said the cap for 12-13 would be a little higher than the cap number in 13-14. Gives team a full season to transition into a lower cap. That doesn't help the Rangers with the multiple contracts up in 13 and 14.
I hope a deal gets done, but a delay has its pros for the Rangers. I can live with watching junior hockey for a couple months if we play less games without Gaborik and the rest of the team would be in better shape for a playoff run.
I'm not familiar with contract law but if there is a rollback could players who signed contacts this summer sue the owners saying that they never intended to pay them according to the agreement?
Their problem is that they have to sign deals like that if they want to be competitive.
That is really not a good reason. You cannot sign deals like that and then ask that salaries be cut back. That is not the way that a CBA or a contract works.
we don't know what was said in negotiations. my guess is they got those massive signing bonuses because the owners and agents had no clue what kind of rollback there would be. there's no rollback on signing bonuses. so we don't know that it wasn't done in good faith of neither side knowing what was coming.
It's been said too many times, but facts are stubborn things:
The NHL is the biggest joke in professional sports.
I just can't believe they are going to do this again....for the second time in less than a decade. What an absolutely, monumental cluster f#$k this league is.
If they lock out this time it will be for the whole season, imo. Again, what a disaster.
That is really not a good reason. You cannot sign deals like that and then ask that salaries be cut back. That is not the way that a CBA or a contract works.
I agree. Look at us. An absolute mess until Sather got capped. The team regressed when they splurged on drury/gomez/redden. Spending isn't linked to winning. LA just won by passing on big contracts, good drafting.
The nhl isn't fighting over "parity" this time, its over maximizing a profit. They feel like they have the bills and the risks, they want more reward. It's just hard to lose games over this when it is the owners throwing money like confetti every 7/1.
They're being pissy because they have to bargain to get their realignment. They hate giving stuff away to the union. They only give stuff that helps the league, its not a partnership.
The league crying over lost management powers... all things they gladly bargained away to get the rollback and cap. The players moved on, they aren't bellyaching constantly over the past.
Every cba the system is broke. Almost comical considering its the system the league unilaterally implemented.
[QUOTE=Kovalev27;54110661]we don't know what was said in negotiations. my guess is they got those massive signing bonuses because the owners and agents had no clue what kind of rollback there would be. there's no rollback on signing bonuses. so we don't know that it wasn't done in good faith of neither side knowing what was coming.[/QUOTE
The bonuses are lockout protection. They are paid regardless of the games lost. Just an incentive. What we don't know is if this
summer's deals were given out knowing full well the league wiuld insist on rollbacks.
NHLPA has given their players a lockout preparation memo
Gaborik will still get paid. Sauer will get paid too.
Quote:
For example, the NHLPA points out that injured players still would receive their paychecks during the lockout. That would include players such as Boston Bruins center Marc Savard and Philadelphia Flyers defenseman Chris Pronger (concussions) and New York Rangers winger Marian Gaborik, who's expected to be out until November after having shoulder surgery.
"If you are unfit to play because of a hockey-related injury when a lockout begins, you are entitled to receive your salary until you are fit to play," the memo said. "If you are currently injured, you should make sure that your condition is fully documented and that your club is aware of it. If you do not receive your salary payment when it becomes due, you should contact your agent and/or the NHLPA legal department immediately."
Bill Daly and Steve Fehr were supposed to have dinner and a beer last night.
Quote:
A better, but not ideal, scenario for NBC would be a delay to the NHL season, similar to what happened to the National Basketball Association last year. The first regular season NHL game is scheduled for Oct. 11, but exhibition games start about two weeks earlier.
The timing could not be worse for Comcast, which is relying on hockey to build up the NBC Sports Network, its fledgling cable sports channel. A lockout would leave the network, previously known as Versus and the Outdoor Life Network, with major holes to fill in its prime-time lineup.
"The NBC Sports Network got some great lift and visibility and awareness with the Olympics and they'd like to keep that momentum by having the NHL," said Jason Maltby, director of national broadcast TV at media buying firm MindShare
Spending isn't linked to winning. LA just won by passing on big contracts, good drafting.
To a point. Carter and Richards are not exactly cheap.
Quote:
The league crying over lost management powers... all things they gladly bargained away to get the rollback and cap.
And I am not even sure what so-called management powers they lost. Bettman got the owners EVERYTHING that they wanted. And now, AGAIN they are complaining about rising salaries? Who asked them to give out such contracts? And the joke of it is, that they continue to give them out as we speak. Telling a player that he cannot be a free agent until he has 10 years of service time is not a management power. You cannot simply set collective bargaining back 50 years becuase you feel like it. The NFL is an owners league. Somewhow, they still believe in free agency.
What management powers did they loose? That the union denied them a realignment? Again, welcome to the world of a CBA.
The Roberts family needs to have a talk with Ed Snider and Gary Bettman.
Considering the contracts that Snider has been handing out and what he attempted to sign Webber for, I have no idea of what he is doing at the bargaining table. You cannot sign someone to a huge contract with the hope that a lockout reduces the salary before said player ever steps on the ice. That is not bargaining in good faith.
To a point. Carter and Richards are not exactly cheap.
And I am not even sure what so-called management powers they lost. Bettman got the owners EVERYTHING that they wanted. And now, AGAIN they are complaining about rising salaries? Who asked them to give out such contracts? And the joke of it is, that they continue to give them out as we speak. Telling a player that he cannot be a free agent until he has 10 years of service time is not a management power. You cannot simply set collective bargaining back 50 years becuase you feel like it. The NFL is an owners league. Somewhow, they still believe in free agency.
What management powers did they loose? That the union denied them a realignment? Again, welcome to the world of a CBA.
Obviously not everything the league is asking for is something they really want... They're going to ask for the moon until real negotiating begins. This way when they concede things it looks like they're budging in issues but all they're doing is conceding the crap they never wanted in the first place. To me the 10 UFA thing seems part of that. They may want it to be a yr or so longer than now but 10 seems like a bit much.
Considering the contracts that Snider has been handing out and what he attempted to sign Webber for, I have no idea of what he is doing at the bargaining table. You cannot sign someone to a huge contract with the hope that a lockout reduces the salary before said player ever steps on the ice. That is not bargaining in good faith.
He is there to ensure they get a deal done under the current system. He wants no part of revenue sharing. That has some semblance if sense. Not like the Wild having representation at the first session a week after those outrageous twin deals.
