HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

When will this lockout end? (all lockout talk here)

View Poll Results: When will the lockout end?
Sometime between Oct-nov 49 18.08%
Sometime between Dec-jan 90 33.21%
Season canceled 132 48.71%
Voters: 271. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-01-2012, 03:42 PM
  #701
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilersfan11 View Post
No NHL hockey until September 2013.
yup. Bettman likely to file paperwork to remove the PA from the table and open the doors for any player to try out for 2013-14.

oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:53 PM
  #702
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,579
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
yup. Bettman likely to file paperwork to remove the PA from the table and open the doors for any player to try out for 2013-14.
Should just dissolve the NHL and start a new original 6 if that's their plan.

Really curious what sponsors are thinking of this joke.

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:53 PM
  #703
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
If we lose the season I hope the NHL sticks it to him and the players. If Im Bettman my new offer is HRR 52%owners 48% players and tell them its only going to get worse from here on out.
It only makes sense to do that. It would have nothing to do with sticking it to the players. operating costs will always go up... and with the players being ignorant the revenues are going down. if you do the math it only makes sense that the league starts translating that into their offers. right now id say 52-48, in two weeks 54-46, in another two weeks 56-44. Inch closer and closer to impasse and dissolving all contracts, re-organize the league to central contracting, have the union removed from the bargaining table, and move forward without them. Implement the Labor standards and contract standards you want. All contracts get dissolved. (thats the major downside).

Bettman stated he never thought you could remove the union through impasse during the first lost season... but considering the PA has never actually negotiated on a NHL frame work, and had not taken up the NHL on offers of negotiating for a year, and also made public statements of communism "the owners need to go out there and make those revenue increases to pay for our raises"-Fehr, captialist american courts will quickly shut down the Red Star commie party of the NHLPA and side with the NHL to do as they like without them. The fact the NHL is also in communication with the PA every day to see if they want to negotiate puts them on better court footing than in 2004.

I dont know if legal impasse is likely by February but i am thinking its possible. Based on the timeline of 05 when Bettman was assured replaceent players and impasse approved by that June as soon as he could file. This time around Bettman can start the time-line at the first invitation to negotiate... which gains him a year.

as an oiler fan i dont want to see impasse dissolve the rights we have to players. but w/e. i dont like a PA that thinks its entitled to be treated as a Union of millionaires either. Stop the guaranteed contracts, dissolve it all. If a player gets cut his contract disappears. Fair. 2 weeks notice and get off the property.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 04:05 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:06 PM
  #704
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
I dont know, Ive been waivering back and forth on the issue of this lockout, and while I believe the owners have the right to lower the percentage of HRR that is given to the players, I also believe it is ridiculous to have a proposal that maintains the same elements of the first proposal regarding contract lengths, arbitration rights and RFA years. It is not fair to lower the cap percentage only and call it a compromise, especially when that cap percentage would take money out of the players pockets (especially people like Suter and Parise, who should get their money after signing their new contracts with the lockout looming) and still not offer any sort of olive branch to the players.

How is it a negotiation when the NHL says "Hey we'll give you guys 43% of HRR, but we're lowering the HRR pot to not include certain things, and also we want all of these contract rights which any casual observer can see would be a world series winning walk off grand slam for us, and we want you to accept it right away so we dont lose any games... Oh you dont like it? Well thats all we'll give you... Ok, ok how about we make it 50% of HRR which isnt even 50% because we redefined HRR... you have 48 hours or we eliminate your chances to work for the next month and a half..."

The league throws out these minor concessions from their absolutely asinine starting position and then call it compromise, but still wont negotiate on any of the other issues in the deal.

Its like if I came to your work today and said, "We'll give you a 15% wage decrease, no more lunch, no more breaks and no more raises. If you dont like it then dont come to work tomorrow." "Ok, ok how about 10% wage decrease? You have ten minutes to take the offer or you're jobless for the next month and a bit." You'd probably tell me to go Fehr myself, and you'd be right to do so.

This whole thing reminds me of the Family Guy episode where Peter gets a chance to win a free boat or take the mystery box. "Well Lois we know that the boats a boat, but the mystery box could be ANYTHING... It could even be a boat... You know how much youve always wanted one of those... We'll take the box"

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:11 PM
  #705
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
It only makes sense to do that. It would have nothing to do with sticking it to the players. operating costs will always go up... and with the players being ignorant the revenues are going down. if you do the math it only makes sense that the league starts translating that into their offers. right now id say 52-48, in two weeks 54-46, in another two weeks 56-44. Inch closer and closer to impasse and dissolving all contracts, re-organize the league to central contracting, have the union removed from the bargaining table, and move forward without them. Implement the Labor standards and contract standards you want. All contracts get dissolved. (thats the major downside).

Bettman stated he never thought you could remove the union through impasse during the first lost season... but considering the PA has never actually negotiated on a NHL frame work, and had not taken up the NHL on offers of negotiating for a year, and also made public statements of communism "the owners need to go out there and make those revenue increases to pay for our raises"-Fehr, captialist american courts will quickly shut down the Red Star commie party of the NHLPA and side with the NHL to do as they like without them. The fact the NHL is also in communication with the PA every day to see if they want to negotiate puts them on better court footing than in 2004.

I dont know if legal impasse is likely by February but i am thinking its possible. Based on the timeline of 05 when Bettman was assured replaceent players and impasse approved by that June as soon as he could file. This time around Bettman can start the time-line at the first invitation to negotiate... which gains him a year.

as an oiler fan i dont want to see impasse dissolve the rights we have to players. but w/e. i dont like a PA that thinks its entitled to be treated as a Union of millionaires either. Stop the guaranteed contracts, dissolve it all. If a player gets cut his contract disappears. Fair. 2 weeks notice and get off the property.
HAHAHA how does centralizing contracts make the NHL less "communist"? This is ludicrous, to have a "capitalist" system everyone would get paid what theyre worth to the market. Im not an NHLPA sympathizer but if you wanted to have a capitalist system every team would get to sign their own contracts, and there would be no salary cap

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:11 PM
  #706
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
I dont know why people dont understand this.

When you sign beyond the expiration of an agreement you are bound to the terms of the successor agreement. This isnt difficult. Too bad for Suter and Parise and all the morons who thought the terms of the CBA were indefinite. Sue their agents if they werent informed. Even my son in grade 5 would likely know what an expiration means. Also, since 2005 nobody has had a real dollar contract, it has all been value dictated by the CBA framework. A 6 Mill contract has not meant 6 mill since the cap was installed.

Its not bad faith negotiating...its called knowing the obvious.

oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:15 PM
  #707
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trufflepig View Post
HAHAHA how does centralizing contracts make the NHL less "communist"? This is ludicrous, to have a "capitalist" system everyone would get paid what theyre worth to the market. Im not an NHLPA sympathizer but if you wanted to have a capitalist system every team would get to sign their own contracts, and there would be no salary cap

You are thinking of the NHL as a market? NO the market is pro sports. The competitors to the NHL -not the teams- the KHL and all the crap leagues that players have just proven, by running off and taking low paying jobs, are competing leagues. The NHL is the business NOT the indivual teams. This has been nown for 20 years and is agreed upon by all owners in Bettmans contracts they sign giving him unilateral power. They can only vote to fire him... other than that he dictates how this show will go. Franchises are like franchises of MCDonalds, the brand and business is the NHL. The franchises are simply so the NHL entity has a footprint in as many locations as it can profit from. the Main entity is the NHL and every decision and court hearing in the last 20 years pertaining to the NHL shows this. The market is pro sports with lots of options...go to the FEL, SEL, KHL we dont care. The players nicely proved that those are competing leagues that can attract big names, and the big name players will play for less money and no perks. done and done. market value set. Evidence building. this isnt even worth debating. so easy. Players actually did everything themselves to destroy their own case.

The NHL will stop competing internally for players. the market is now what it should be...the players have proven the NHL is not a monopoly and can centralize.

that is capitalism. dont like the NHL? go to siberia.

If players are idiots that dont know expiration of labor agreements and that they are held to the new terms... lol... i guess the PA should be dissolved on the basis that their agents are improperly informing their clients.

The NHL doesnt want to dissolve contracts because the teams will lose player rights but really.. bettman will still be here and the owners will make more profits, their franchise values will go up with the cost certainty of central contracting and end to internal competition for labor. I think the owners are ready to accept the huge advantages of losing their player "assets". more where those came from. Perks will be removed to parallel the competing leagues, salaries will only compete with the other leagues and removal of cap since its not necessary when centrally contracting.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 04:32 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:15 PM
  #708
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
I dont know why people dont understand this.

When you sign beyond the expiration of an agreement you are bound to the terms of the successor agreement. This isnt difficult. Too bad for Suter and Parise and all the morons who thought the terms of the CBA were indefinite. Sue their agents if they werent informed. Even my son in grade 5 would likely know what an expiration means. Also, since 2005 nobody has had a real dollar contract, it has all been value dictated by the CBA framework. A 6 Mill contract has not meant 6 mill since the cap was installed.

Its not bad faith negotiating...its called knowing the obvious.
And thus the owners would be expected to pay for the amount that they would be expected to pay under the terms of that agreement.

I dont know why people dont understand this

It most definitely is negotiating in bad faith.

Why should the players sign an agreement stating that they're ok with losing money from their contracts. Would you?

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:17 PM
  #709
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
You are thinking of the NHL as a market? NO the market is pro sports. The competitors are the NHL -not the teams- the KHL and all the crap leagues that players have just proven, by running off and taking low paying jobs, are competing leagues.

The NHL will stop competing internally for players. the market is now what it should be...the players have proven the NHL is not a monopoly and can centralize.

that is capitalism. dont like the NHL? go to siberia.
No the NHL is the market, as understood by the fact that each team is independently owned and operated (aside from pheonix)

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:17 PM
  #710
ponokanocker
Registered User
 
ponokanocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by raab View Post
If we lose the season I hope the NHL sticks it to him and the players. If Im Bettman my new offer is HRR 52%owners 48% players and tell them its only going to get worse from here on out.
And make the agreement for 10 years, with the owners having the option to extend the deal for 5 more years. I don't want to go back to another lockout/strike in another 7 years.

ponokanocker is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:29 PM
  #711
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 26,579
vCash: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
I dont know why people dont understand this.

When you sign beyond the expiration of an agreement you are bound to the terms of the successor agreement. This isnt difficult. Too bad for Suter and Parise and all the morons who thought the terms of the CBA were indefinite. Sue their agents if they werent informed. Even my son in grade 5 would likely know what an expiration means. Also, since 2005 nobody has had a real dollar contract, it has all been value dictated by the CBA framework. A 6 Mill contract has not meant 6 mill since the cap was installed.

Its not bad faith negotiating...its called knowing the obvious.
How so?

joestevens29 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:35 PM
  #712
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trufflepig View Post
No the NHL is the market, as understood by the fact that each team is independently owned and operated (aside from pheonix)
research. The players show disagreement. They are playing for competing leagues, thus proving competition and the ability to earn an income in the field outside the NHL.

its beautiful really.

The owners get a share in the NHL- they get to collect shares of profits as determined by the parameters THE NHL sets out. THE NHL also might allow them to collect on some of their franchise value in sale but reserv es ability to assign fees to transactions. who has the power you say? oh yeah, the nhl dictates everything a team can do and how they do it and has been proven in court as owning all the rights to the teams.

Questions?

Why dont you ask KAtz or Illitch how they feel about the lockout? oh wait you caant... the NHL controls them and can even strip them of ownership and force sales.
But the Teams have the power in your eyes...like a guy owning his own store. Yup. sure looks that way.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 04:42 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 04:39 PM
  #713
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by joestevens29 View Post
How so?

OK ;
the easiest and quickest way to explain this is first clearly stating that every contract before 2005 was a dollar value contract.

The CBA of 2005 dictates that the SPC, Standard Player Contract, and all contracts perks and concessions exist only within the terms the labor agreement.
Dictated within the CBA is that players salaries are aligned to revenue. It is easier to think of a players contract as a statement of their value compared to the other players. The pot is a certain amount of the revenue -which was until 2012 expiration a 57% share-, and from that pot the players are paid out their share. If at the end of the year the revenues are not there and the PA, players, got paid too much they are required by law to pay back every cent over 57%. The money would be taken back from players on a fair basis. The best way to think about this is ignoring the pay checks and just recognizing the pot... 57% to players, 43% to owners. Then the players split it up as in accordance to their contract value. If the Players made 3% too much everyone gives back 3%.
The point being made here is a 6 Mill contract doesnt mean you et paid 6 Mill... you could get paid less...you could get paid more. Its all based on revenues and the terms of the revenue shares as stated and agreed in the CBA.

Once the CBA expires the terms of the share value can be changed since the SPC specifically states its value only exists within the terms of the CBA.

So if you sign a contract of 6 Mill on Sept 14 of 2012, thinking the owners will fold -when really its whether or not the owners can get 20 votes in favor of firing gary, or gary folds- you are signing a contract that you agree to shares as dictated in the next CBA for a claim amount of 6Mil. Your 6Mil is a statement of the shares of the PA money pool from its share of revenues. if the PA share drops than you might not get your 6M. If it went up you would get more. If the PA share drops to 50/50 then obviously any share attached to the PA pot drops.

As former PA headman Paul Kelly recently stated... IF the NHLPA negotiated a share of expansion fees, and promoted a expansion to Quebec City and Markham, the NHLPA would likely get the pot money back it would lose by going to 50/50. Plus they would have more revenue, more leverage for an expiring Canadian Broadcasting contract and more gate income.

These arent guaranteed funds contracts. they are contracts solely based on revenues and being bound to not only current CBAs but any CBA that exists during the contract. THe agents knew this.

I will add an opinion; When Paul Kelly was head of the PA it marked the most positive time in NHL hockey. The man that put eagleson away was always in direct communication with the league and looking into solutions to problems that would benefit the league and players equally. I am not surprised to hear Kelly with an interesting proposal and to be looking at the negotiations as lacking in teamwork. This man was only fired due to internal bickering that guys like -lindros *cough* and others werent getting treated well under Kelly. Kelly wants problem solvers not problem makers. If kelly was still head of the PA the players would not have lost time, not have lost a dime, and likely have earned more say in the decision of the NHL. Butttt the Players proved again and again how worthless and childish their opinions and thoughts are.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 05:17 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:10 PM
  #714
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
research. The players show disagreement. They are playing for competing leagues, thus proving competition and the ability to earn an income in the field outside the NHL.

its beautiful really.

The owners get a share in the NHL- they get to collect shares of profits as determined by the parameters THE NHL sets out. THE NHL also might allow them to collect on some of their franchise value in sale but reserv es ability to assign fees to transactions. who has the power you say? oh yeah, the nhl dictates everything a team can do and how they do it and has been proven in court as owning all the rights to the teams.

Questions?

Why dont you ask KAtz or Illitch how they feel about the lockout? oh wait you caant... the NHL controls them and can even strip them of ownership and force sales.
But the Teams have the power in your eyes...like a guy owning his own store. Yup. sure looks that way.
Im sure you have done more research than I have but that only because this issue saddens me and therefore I choose to limit the time I spend on it.

The only reason the NHL has these powers that you bring up is because the independent owners have the foresight to realize that dealing with a Union and trying to run a league as independents would be massively confusing, frustrating and logistically extremely difficult. So they (under their own free will) give the NHL the power to act on their behalf. Not unlike our government which makes laws and regulations for us but is otherwise run by us, as it is our say which is supposed to dictate what they do. If the owners were to choose to be completely independent, that would be entirely within their rights, although it would most likely be counterproductive to their goals (i.e. money).

The players can always choose to go to other leagues, and this proves nothing. A player like Radulov can go to the KHL because he doesnt like the contract he gets from nashville which is limited by the old CBA, which was agreed to by 20 out of 30 owners (at least). On the same hand a guy like Gaborik can decide to sign in NYR because Vancouver wouldnt offer him the same money/term w/e. For him to have the ability to choose which team he goes to based on salary and term or any other individual preferences means that he is surveying the market and getting the most out of it that he can. That is a free market.

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:27 PM
  #715
Tarus
#Craigsnotonit
 
Tarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
I dont know why people dont understand this.

When you sign beyond the expiration of an agreement you are bound to the terms of the successor agreement. This isnt difficult. Too bad for Suter and Parise and all the morons who thought the terms of the CBA were indefinite. Sue their agents if they werent informed. Even my son in grade 5 would likely know what an expiration means. Also, since 2005 nobody has had a real dollar contract, it has all been value dictated by the CBA framework. A 6 Mill contract has not meant 6 mill since the cap was installed.

Its not bad faith negotiating...its called knowing the obvious.
They didn't sign those contracts because they were ignorant of what expiration of the CBA meant, they signed them with the intent to get benefits of the expired CBA loopholes that were unlikely to transfer over to the new agreement.

Tarus is online now  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:29 PM
  #716
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trufflepig View Post
Im sure you have done more research than I have but that only because this issue saddens me and therefore I choose to limit the time I spend on it.

The only reason the NHL has these powers that you bring up is because the independent owners have the foresight to realize that dealing with a Union and trying to run a league as independents would be massively confusing, frustrating and logistically extremely difficult. So they (under their own free will) give the NHL the power to act on their behalf. Not unlike our government which makes laws and regulations for us but is otherwise run by us, as it is our say which is supposed to dictate what they do. If the owners were to choose to be completely independent, that would be entirely within their rights, although it would most likely be counterproductive to their goals (i.e. money).

The players can always choose to go to other leagues, and this proves nothing. A player like Radulov can go to the KHL because he doesnt like the contract he gets from nashville which is limited by the old CBA, which was agreed to by 20 out of 30 owners (at least). On the same hand a guy like Gaborik can decide to sign in NYR because Vancouver wouldnt offer him the same money/term w/e. For him to have the ability to choose which team he goes to based on salary and term or any other individual preferences means that he is surveying the market and getting the most out of it that he can. That is a free market.
We arent on the same page-although you are correct on paragraph 1 (Bettman said it was in their interest to give him the rights he has and i agree and they did too). Believe me, the NHL can centralize contracts very easily. The hard part is that Bettman believes that it would take away competitiveness and also make the league seem pre-determined. That is why Bettman in March 2005 told the BOG he was refusing an offer to buy the NHL. Under the proposal and purchase the NHL would be owned by the buying entity and each team would pay the league 10 Mill a season, the contracts for their players would be centrally controlled but player transactions-trades- would be done at team levels.
Bettman once half joked that he gets blamed when a guy scores a goal on a missed call against the canucks. the guy is public enemy #1 and hired to be so. It is of no interest to him to be blamed for every contract and every score result. But in the end if things go to impasse there will be no option but to go ahead and do it. The biggest damage of impasse would be the likely dissolvement of player contracts. Teams losing their player assets is the only thing that makes Bettman hold off of signing the official papers and moving to the courts for quick rulings. Chara hits Patty in Montreal and when no ruling is handed down its because "Bettman loves the Habs and makes sure they win". Henrik sedin or his sister gets punched by Marchand and its "Bettman doesnt like Vancouver the fix is in". Once teams lost their assets they would be all on board to centrally contract.

As for Gaborik choosing to go to NYR. In centrally contracting system - we are imagining the terms of such a system and assuming a vet gets to choose his location- he can likely still choose his location. Perhaps if he chooses Vancouver he would be offered more from the league. Lets say a team has a #1RW, in central eyes perhaps Gaborik is only offered #2 Money if he goes there, but if he goes where he is needed he can have more money. Its highly likely that each team would have a salary matrix and a league bonus salary matrix. I would see that as the system. Players would likely have an age or "years of employment" like any other company where freedoms would increase to be ing able to choose their own city.

The point is the NHL is not a monopoly. Players have proven they have many options. In courts eyes that is all they need to see to allow the kind of restructuring needed to go to central contracting. Players proved the NHL is not the only option. its a free market out there.

--- as a side note the league recently hired firms to do focus group sessions with NHL fans. one question highly rumored to have been asked was "what would you think of the league controlling contracts, would it change you appreciation for the game or its integrity?"


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 05:43 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:37 PM
  #717
Matador
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,377
vCash: 500
I was wondering today why the NHL doesn't institute a fixed cap. To some degree it would alleviate the problem of teams signing long contracts, hoping that the cap will continually increase so that in a couple years the contracts is a smaller percentage of the cap.

It is possible to maintain linkage while still having a fixed cap. It just means that the difference between the players portion of HRR and actual cap dollars spent is sent to the players at the end of the season through escrow.

Linkage can be maintained while having a hard $70 million cap every year of the new CBA. To some degree, I think it would be easier to evaluate trades. General Managers will know with certainty what portion of the cap a player is going to take up in the future.

Basically what I am saying under this model is that General Managers have to determine what portion of a cap a player is worth instead of determining an actual dollar amount. Players still receive the same amount of HRR they would have, had the cap fluctuated along with HRR. Growth in cap space will not bailout a team from a terrible contract as a player signed to a $5m contract takes the same percentage of cap space in 13/14 as he would in 16/17

Matador is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:53 PM
  #718
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matador View Post
I was wondering today why the NHL doesn't institute a fixed cap. To some degree it would alleviate the problem of teams signing long contracts, hoping that the cap will continually increase so that in a couple years the contracts is a smaller percentage of the cap.

It is possible to maintain linkage while still having a fixed cap. It just means that the difference between the players portion of HRR and actual cap dollars spent is sent to the players at the end of the season through escrow.

Linkage can be maintained while having a hard $70 million cap every year of the new CBA. To some degree, I think it would be easier to evaluate trades. General Managers will know with certainty what portion of the cap a player is going to take up in the future.

Basically what I am saying under this model is that General Managers have to determine what portion of a cap a player is worth instead of determining an actual dollar amount. Players still receive the same amount of HRR they would have, had the cap fluctuated along with HRR. Growth in cap space will not bailout a team from a terrible contract as a player signed to a $5m contract takes the same percentage of cap space in 13/14 as he would in 16/17
I would state right now that the PA likely wouldnt go for that either. You are taking away some of their agents pitch points. You see the job of an agent is to make a GM feel smart in getting a contract. Most of GMs are not well educated, most Agents are. You sure got me there Mr Snow... Boy, Rick is going to be happy about his 15 year contract in Long Island but he wont be too pleased with what he possibly left on the table for earnings. great bargaining with you too Mr Wang. You two sure bent me over the table. i got to go and fix my underwear now."
Mr Wang --" im a ******** genius"
Mr Snow " I am the best GM ever"

Press Conference
Mr Wang all smiles --" i am very pleased to announce that we have made a commitment to Rick for the next 35 years at the league maximum and he has accepted. Its a great day in New York Sports. This deal is something we all can grow with and we know that when Rick can play his first full season it will look like a bargain."
Mr Snow " I got the call from Ricks agent that he was willing to lock himself up for his career with the islanders. It was a tough bargaining session but i figure he is likely to become the best goalie in the league in 6 years and when he does the cap hit will look so small. according to my projections if his level of competitiveness increases the same amount as his hospital visit frequency he should be better than jesus by 2012. Then we will win cup after cup. Sure its alot to pay but i wasnt born yesterday. we got a great deal."
Rick...turns to agent...agent smiling holding back laughter.
Rick -" umm yeah, i feel like i left alot on the table but its good to not worry about money the rest of my life or having to work to get a contract"
Mr. Wang "enough with the talk...im absolutely glowing....lets get picture now."

Cameras go off
Mr Wang - man am i a fn genius. i am so genius i am genius to the power of 15.
Mr Snow - and people said it was dumb to hire me. i showed them. this isnt a poorly run organization. I am the best GM ever.

Agent - 10 % of 70 million for acting like i got bent over? easiest money ever and now to vacation in hawaii until next summer.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 06:24 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 05:58 PM
  #719
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
We arent on the same page-although you are correct on paragraph 1 (Bettman said it was in their interest to give him the rights he has and i agree and they did too). Believe me, the NHL can centralize contracts very easily. The hard part is that Bettman believes that it would take away competitiveness and also make the league seem pre-determined. That is why Bettman in March 2005 told the BOG he was refusing an offer to buy the NHL. Under the proposal and purchase the NHL would be owned by the buying entity and each team would pay the league 10 Mill a season, the contracts for their players would be centrally controlled but player transactions-trades- would be done at team levels.
Bettman once half joked that he gets blamed when a guy scores a goal on a missed call against the canucks. the guy is public enemy #1 and hired to be so. It is of no interest to him to be blamed for every contract and every score result. But in the end if things go to impasse there will be no option but to go ahead and do it. The biggest damage of impasse would be the likely dissolvement of player contracts. Teams losing their player assets is the only thing that makes Bettman hold off of signing the official papers and moving to the courts for quick rulings. Chara hits Patty in Montreal and when no ruling is handed down its because "Bettman loves the Habs and makes sure they win". Henrik sedin or his sister gets punched by Marchand and its "Bettman doesnt like Vancouver the fix is in". Once teams lost their assets they would be all on board to centrally contract.

As for Gaborik choosing to go to NYR. In centrally contracting system - we are imagining the terms of such a system and assuming a vet gets to choose his location- he can likely still choose his location. Perhaps if he chooses Vancouver he would be offered more from the league. Lets say a team has a #1RW, in central eyes perhaps Gaborik is only offered #2 Money if he goes there, but if he goes where he is needed he can have more money. Its highly likely that each team would have a salary matrix and a league bonus salary matrix. I would see that as the system. Players would likely have an age or "years of employment" like any other company where freedoms would increase to be ing able to choose their own city.

The point is the NHL is not a monopoly. Players have proven they have many options. In courts eyes that is all they need to see to allow the kind of restructuring needed to go to central contracting. Players proved the NHL is not the only option. its a free market out there.

--- as a side note the league recently hired firms to do focus group sessions with NHL fans. one question highly rumored to have been asked was "what would you think of the league controlling contracts, would it change you appreciation for the game or its integrity?"
Yes we are definitely on different pages, and what you bring up here is very interesting, and most likely would change the face of the league entirely. I have not put much thought into the centralizing of contracts but it seems to be full of chances for corruption or back room deals. Its an interesting concept. With my limited knowledge this seems to be a complex plan full of pitfalls. Do you see the league going through with this option? I cant really see big money teams willing to give up their competitive edge, although it would eliminate the problems they have been facing with the union.

Trufflepig is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:12 PM
  #720
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trufflepig View Post
Yes we are definitely on different pages, and what you bring up here is very interesting, and most likely would change the face of the league entirely. I have not put much thought into the centralizing of contracts but it seems to be full of chances for corruption or back room deals. Its an interesting concept. With my limited knowledge this seems to be a complex plan full of pitfalls. Do you see the league going through with this option? I cant really see big money teams willing to give up their competitive edge, although it would eliminate the problems they have been facing with the union.
Last resort. My opinion of Bettman is higher than most... but i research alot. I also paid alot of attention to how he worked with the Union in the short time Kelly was in charge. I think Bettman has proven that HE isnt the issue. Frankly, the league would be INCREDIBLY profitable under central contracting. They cant do it without restructuring or an offer to buy the league like in 2005 and that kind of restructuring would either have to go through the PA or through legally ruled impasse.
Its an ABSOLUTE last resort. I dont believe for one second that any team or Bettman wants to go that route despite the profit it would bring.
Another year gone with no revenue will make them think about impasse though and as soon as that happens the teams will lose their contracts and assets...then it will become a money issue and central contracts/restructuring will look very appealing.

The point above all is that the players have it pretty good and it could get alot LOT worse. A colleague punched some numbers and felt that if the NHL centrally controlled contracts they could employee costs easily within the average businesses 30% of revenues. Easily. Also unlike other businesses they dont need to add players if demand increases... they can keep thenumbers static but increase their revenue pot exponentially. If a Union did form it would be easy to squash as well...

oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:19 PM
  #721
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillypriest View Post
Of course he know. Goodenow was desperate to keep the players from breaking ranks and tried like hell to persuade the players to stick with the program. Eventually Ted Saskin and Trevor Linden went around him and made a deal.

The basic problem is that getting a regulatory body like the NLRB to make a ruling in your favour is inherently risky. This is intentional. They want the parties to negotiate first and foremost.
I believe part of the problem for hockey players is that there are other professional leagues.

Thus players have the option of playing elsewheres.

AM is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:24 PM
  #722
AM
Registered User
 
AM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trufflepig View Post
And thus the owners would be expected to pay for the amount that they would be expected to pay under the terms of that agreement.

I dont know why people dont understand this

It most definitely is negotiating in bad faith.

Why should the players sign an agreement stating that they're ok with losing money from their contracts. Would you?
Why would players sign an NHL contract?

Really?

At a guess, to make millions of dollars playign a game.

AM is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 06:41 PM
  #723
oilinblood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,897
vCash: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
Why would players sign an NHL contract?

Really?

At a guess, to make millions of dollars playign a game.
from the interviews i can tell most players have at least an 8th grade education, maybe not high school since they dont understand most of what they are talking about, but at least enough to qualify for flipping burgers in the real world.

society always needs people good with a shovel though, or to open doors

hockey players have so many career choices to use as leverage against the NHL. Everytime they open their mouths im sure bettman is reminded they have jobb options at mcdonalds if he doesnt give-in.


If I am Bettman the first thing i do when hockey is back on is remove name bars. It just makes players feel they are bigger than the game. Take the name bars off. It also removes most of the players ability to make an earning outside the game on a name that was made valuable merely by its association to the NHL. If the NHL isnt there none of these guys are worth anything.

Have broadcasters only refer to players as numbers. "number 2 scoreesssss"

im fine with it all. they dont pay to play, you pay them, you own it all, they are given the stage. they #2'ed on it. crush them beyond all recognition.
Fortunately all of this wouldnt be needed in a CBA. It can be done without the NHLPAs agreement. bye bye individual endorsements.


Last edited by oilinblood: 11-01-2012 at 06:51 PM.
oilinblood is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 07:15 PM
  #724
worraps
Acceptance
 
worraps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,729
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
from the interviews i can tell most players have at least an 8th grade education, maybe not high school since they dont understand most of what they are talking about, but at least enough to qualify for flipping burgers in the real world.

society always needs people good with a shovel though, or to open doors

hockey players have so many career choices to use as leverage against the NHL. Everytime they open their mouths im sure bettman is reminded they have jobb options at mcdonalds if he doesnt give-in.


If I am Bettman the first thing i do when hockey is back on is remove name bars. It just makes players feel they are bigger than the game. Take the name bars off. It also removes most of the players ability to make an earning outside the game on a name that was made valuable merely by its association to the NHL. If the NHL isnt there none of these guys are worth anything.

Have broadcasters only refer to players as numbers. "number 2 scoreesssss"

im fine with it all. they dont pay to play, you pay them, you own it all, they are given the stage. they #2'ed on it. crush them beyond all recognition.
Fortunately all of this wouldnt be needed in a CBA. It can be done without the NHLPAs agreement. bye bye individual endorsements.

worraps is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 07:20 PM
  #725
Trufflepig
Registered User
 
Trufflepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 70
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AM View Post
Why would players sign an NHL contract?

Really?

At a guess, to make millions of dollars playign a game.
Not at all what I was arguing but Im glad you could give me such a simple answer. Obviously you would sign a NHL contract to make millions playing a game. The question becomes why would the players give up any of the millions they currently make. I wouldn't if I was in the same position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oilinblood View Post
Last resort. My opinion of Bettman is higher than most... but i research alot. I also paid alot of attention to how he worked with the Union in the short time Kelly was in charge. I think Bettman has proven that HE isnt the issue. Frankly, the league would be INCREDIBLY profitable under central contracting. They cant do it without restructuring or an offer to buy the league like in 2005 and that kind of restructuring would either have to go through the PA or through legally ruled impasse.
Its an ABSOLUTE last resort. I dont believe for one second that any team or Bettman wants to go that route despite the profit it would bring.
Another year gone with no revenue will make them think about impasse though and as soon as that happens the teams will lose their contracts and assets...then it will become a money issue and central contracts/restructuring will look very appealing.

The point above all is that the players have it pretty good and it could get alot LOT worse. A colleague punched some numbers and felt that if the NHL centrally controlled contracts they could employee costs easily within the average businesses 30% of revenues. Easily. Also unlike other businesses they dont need to add players if demand increases... they can keep thenumbers static but increase their revenue pot exponentially. If a Union did form it would be easy to squash as well...
That's a crazy idea, I've never thought of that before. Well at least we know that there wont be two cancelled years in a row haha.

You're right, players have it very good, and I would switch spots in a second. My only point is that if I were in the same position, I wouldn't give up all of my contracting rights just to make a deal. On the other hand without the owners there is no league to play in at all, so that should afford them more control. I just feel that their bargaining style is similar to Darryl Katz's, all brute force grinding, not enough finesse. (Unless they are truly trying to break the union in which case, carry on haha)

Trufflepig 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 12:16 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.