HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 04:57 PM
  #801
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
let them do that they can spend the year counting the money they are losing.

Kovalev27 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:59 PM
  #802
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
I'm starting to think Bettman offered that 50/50 deal knowing the players would reject it, with the sole intention of winning the interest of the fans with the illusion he is "making an effort".
I think this is exactly what's going on, and by the sentiment on this board, Bettman has done a masterful job of turning the tables and seizing control in the PR campaign.

azrok22 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 04:59 PM
  #803
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Honestly my biggest question is - why the h did the players use the de-linked framework again? Why not just try to negotiate on % within the NHL's framework. It's the same end goal - getting players closer in real dollars this year.

That would be faaaaaar less antagonistic (and likely more productive).

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:00 PM
  #804
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,345
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Morrison View Post
Oh come on... Anything to hate on Bettman, right? Even though he seems like the most reasonable one right now.
From what I'm reading, the players are saying that even though Bettman offered 50/50 and "no rollbacks", it really isn't 50/50 because players salaries are still being cut enormously, even on exsitsting contracts. Fehr said he would accept 50/50 if there were no current salary rollbacks, which is essentially what we all thought the offer was to begin with. Thus, logic says the NHL's offer was misleading.

So if this is the case, how can you argue my point?

__________________
"Matteau! Matteau! Matteau!"~H. Rose
BlueShirts88 is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:02 PM
  #805
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
From what I'm reading, the players are saying that even though Bettman offered 50/50 and "no rollbacks", it really isn't 50/50 because players salaries are still being cut enormously, even on exsitsting contracts. Fehr said he would accept 50/50 if there were no current salary rollbacks, which is essentially what we all thought the offer was to begin with. Thus, logic says the NHL's offer was misleading.

So if this is the case, how can you argue my point?
I think just about everyone realized a 50/50 split this year would mean the players taking a paycut. It would just be via escrow and not a formal "rollback" of all contract dollars owed.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:04 PM
  #806
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Right there is the nutshell of all the problems in the negotiations. They earned the 57% under the last CBA which is expired, gone, non-existent.

Yes, NHLPA advocates, the owner's made their bed with that one, the players got screwed over and here it is broken again, blah blah blah. We get it NHLPA, you guys got screwed. But that CBA was broken, so now take the time to fix it. One of the major reasons it was broken is because you guys were entitled to 57% The owner's should have seen that potential growth coming on and hurting the league under that CBA if it did, but they didn't, and that's unfair.

The league cannot operate with 30 teams at a players share of 57% of HRR. You want 57% ? Then cut the league to 26 teams.
But they had no obligation to treat this past summer like they were in trouble or that contracts were too high? Man, they really hate those cheating contracts.... on sept. 14. Maybe the player share wouldn't be close to 55% if they owners showed this much resolve in July.

The owners can operate under the old CBA and gain on contracts The players do the same and they have no expectations. The NBA can honor contracts, its not a foreign concept. No, its not 50% tomorrow. It will be in two years. Why can't the payers get that one, sole concession considering all of the give backs? Why is that so terible?

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:05 PM
  #807
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,345
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I think just about everyone realized a 50/50 split this year would mean the players taking a paycut. It would just be via escrow and not a formal "rollback" of all contract dollars owed.

From the offer:
Quote:
9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

I'm not sure how this means current contracts would suffer a pay cut. I'm not saying your wrong, but I'll need an explanation.

BlueShirts88 is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:06 PM
  #808
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
I'm starting to think Bettman offered that 50/50 deal knowing the players would reject it, with the sole intention of winning the interest of the fans with the illusion he is "making an effort".
It wasn't the big market owners with a lot to lose or any of the corporate sponsors like NBC, right?

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:08 PM
  #809
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I think just about everyone realized a 50/50 split this year would mean the players taking a paycut. It would just be via escrow and not a formal "rollback" of all contract dollars owed.
Bettman said yesterday the proposal would pay back contracts. The details say that the back pay tacks onto the escrow bill.

Bettman did not lead us to believe there would be a paycut.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:08 PM
  #810
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
But they had no obligation to treat this past summer like they were in trouble or that contracts were too high? Man, they really hate those cheating contracts.... on sept. 14. Maybe the player share wouldn't be close to 55% if they owners showed this much resolve in July.

The owners can operate under the old CBA and gain on contracts The players do the same and they have no expectations. The NBA can honor contracts, its not a foreign concept. No, its not 50% tomorrow. It will be in two years. Why can't the payers get that one, sole concession considering all of the give backs? Why is that so terible?
It's not.

I said that weeks ago. Give them guaranteed contracts for everything signed already. Link the % to that #.

Then in 2/3 yrs with growth and expriring contracts you're at 50%. Keep it there. Done and done.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:09 PM
  #811
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
From the offer:



I'm not sure how this means current contracts would suffer a pay cut. I'm not saying your wrong, but I'll need an explanation.
50% of revenues means something like 1.65 billion is "owed" to the players. Since contract values are near 1.8+b, the players have to give that money back.
Essentially, if every club had salaries at the midpoint, escrow would be 0. If every club had salaries below the midpoint, the players would receive MORE than their contract value. Since more money per club was paid out on average than the midpoint, the players would have to return the balance (as they frankly have the last few years).

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:09 PM
  #812
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
But they had no obligation to treat this past summer like they were in trouble or that contracts were too high? Man, they really hate those cheating contracts.... on sept. 14. Maybe the player share wouldn't be close to 55% if they owners showed this much resolve in July.

The owners can operate under the old CBA and gain on contracts The players do the same and they have no expectations. The NBA can honor contracts, its not a foreign concept. No, its not 50% tomorrow. It will be in two years. Why can't the payers get that one, sole concession considering all of the give backs? Why is that so terible?
The player share wasn't tied to how much the owners were spending on players, it was tied to revenues. I think the 57% players split hit when HRR exceeded somewhere near $3 billion.

You're absolute right. I'm waiting for the day that an owner comes out and says "listen, the CBA was broken the way you could treat the cap and everyone knew it. I wish my GM restrained himself instead of finding ways to use the loopholes and make our team better." Or a player comes out and says "you know, I was offered a lifetime contract but I turned it down because it's under a broken system" then I'll take the side of the first person who rolls over, and be forever grateful to the NHL or PA, whoever it is.

silverfish is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:12 PM
  #813
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
From the offer:



I'm not sure how this means current contracts would suffer a pay cut. I'm not saying your wrong, but I'll need an explanation.
The contract terms aren't changing. A rollback would mean that every player's contract is simply slashed a set percentage.

The players still collect their contract this year based on 57% (roughly). At the end of the year the league says well you were paid out $x which is x% of revenues, but you're only owed 50%. Therefore we will take the difference from escrow, and if that isn't enough you will cut us a check. This is "the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA".

So they will still see a significant paycut - roughly 57% to 50% is a 12.3% cut. However their contracts were not "rolled back"; aka if revenues go up so that the players current contracts fit within 50% they get their full amount, not an amount slashed by a set % up front.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:14 PM
  #814
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Bettman said yesterday the proposal would pay back contracts. The details say that the back pay tacks onto the escrow bill.

Bettman did not lead us to believe there would be a paycut.
Ok fair, I should have clarified with an immediate paycut. Whether Bettman said it or not, in the details it was clear that an immediate drop to 50% would result in the players giving up a ton via escrow unless the league grew at a ridiculous rate.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:14 PM
  #815
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,345
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
50% of revenues means something like 1.65 billion is "owed" to the players. Since contract values are near 1.8+b, the players have to give that money back.
But I was under the impression that with the "No rollback" clause, the 50/50 split was for future contracts and future revenue? There's still a lot of this I don't understand. I fail to see how, legally, the NHL can even go in and alter the terms of an existing contract.

BlueShirts88 is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:18 PM
  #816
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
But I was under the impression that with the "No rollback" clause, the 50/50 split was for future contracts and future revenue? There's still a lot of this I don't understand. I fail to see how, legally, the NHL can even go in and alter the terms of an existing contract.
Not really, it just means the NHL pays them in money from future escrow. Kind of a swindle tbh.


As for the legal ramifications, you have to read the CBA closely. ANY SPC signed under the previous CBA is subject to the ramifications of any future CBA. Therefore, when the players signed their contracts, they signed them fully aware that they may not fully ever receive that money.

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:20 PM
  #817
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers88 View Post
I fail to see how, legally, the NHL can even go in and alter the terms of an existing contract.
Because every contract signed is based on linkage, their annual salaries are really conditional. The players collect their salary all year, and pay a set % into escrow. At the end of the year, the amount they are owed is reconciled with the amount of HRR league brought in. Then they either get back their escrow (if salaries paid and HRR was perfectly in-line with the projection), lose some of it, or even get it all back and then some.

Bob McKenzie:

Quote:
That's why three years ago, for example, every player's contract was devalued by 12.88 per cent and six years ago, the value of every player's contract was actually increased by 4.64 per cent.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:22 PM
  #818
BlueShirts88
Section 208 Row 15
 
BlueShirts88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,345
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BlueShirts88
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
Not really, it just means the NHL pays them in money from future escrow. Kind of a swindle tbh.


As for the legal ramifications, you have to read the CBA closely. ANY SPC signed under the previous CBA is subject to the ramifications of any future CBA. Therefore, when the players signed their contracts, they signed them fully aware that they may not fully ever receive that money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Because every contract signed is based on linkage, their annual salaries are really conditional. The players collect their salary all year, and pay a set % into escrow. At the end of the year, the amount they are owed is reconciled with the amount of HRR league brought in. Then they either get back their escrow (if salaries paid and HRR was perfectly in-line with the projection), lose some of it, or even get it all back and then some.
Interesting stuff -- You learn something new every day.

I can absolutely see why the players are still upset though.

BlueShirts88 is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:25 PM
  #819
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,678
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
It is just basic math imo
But pride & vanity seems to be getting in the way
Let me parley this between the 4 Big fellas and just give me an excel sheet, a trio of good accountants and a couple of big pitchers of coffee and we could hammer it out in an allnighter at the longest. I have been in tougher negotiations than this lol

BBKers is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:28 PM
  #820
silverfish
Mr. Glass
 
silverfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Standing on a Train
Country: United States
Posts: 14,929
vCash: 500
Bill Daly on the Unions 50/50 deal...

Quote:
"The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players' Association earlier today is being misrepresented...
Quote:
"It's not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely, a 56 to 57% deal in Yr. 1 and never gets to 50% during the proposed 5-yr term of the agreement.
Quote:
"The proposal contemplates paying the players approximately $650 million outside the players' share. In effect, the Union is proposing...
Quote:
"to change the accounting rules to be able to say 50-50, when really it is not. ...
Quote:
"The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did."
All from Dan Rosen's Twitter page...

silverfish is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:34 PM
  #821
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Ok fair, I should have clarified with an immediate paycut. Whether Bettman said it or not, in the details it was clear that an immediate drop to 50% would result in the players giving up a ton via escrow unless the league grew at a ridiculous rate.
Yeah, you garner that from reading it. But Bettman stepped to the podium yesterday and said we are going to honor all contracts with deferred comp. He swayed opinion greatly. Fair, unfair, they should have seen it coming considering future CBAs change, whatever. Bettman earned a lot of cache yesterday by implying contracts were guaranteed. They weren't. If he said yesterday, "50/50 but anything over the threshold is subject to escrow", a lot of people would have been prepared for this let down. When we figured out the language of the clause, we expected the players to fight it.

I don't know, the players are losing ground on every issue. If they want to protect the inked deals, I think they are entitled to seek it. The math was done, it's appx 54% of expected revenue this year. Maybe 51-51% next year.

I think we would all respect owners showing restraint. We respect the new provisions for those aims. But to go crazy with record deals and then whine that they are too high... They could have bargained in good faith, and we are looking at salaries being about 52% of next year's revenue. Especially with that Weber deal, and all of the signing bonuses/lockout provisions. Get past this season and real dollars owed will plummet next summer.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:34 PM
  #822
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,838
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
The day I believe Bill Daly is the day I believe (insert politician here).

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is online now  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:39 PM
  #823
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Daly is doing some creative accounting. The definition of HRR is playing a big part. Make no mistake, it is not settled yet. Other sources have this year's salaries at 54% of HRR. 5% growth. Growth has been 7% every year. Cap hits are one thing. Real salary, the basis of the %, is artificially high due to lockout provisions/bonuses. Weber gets $20m in bonus money. Richards gets money. The owners used roster bonuses to land players, now they are using it to get a huge escrow check.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:41 PM
  #824
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
I don't know how "50/50 split, with all contracts guaranteed" can be spun any other way. No, it's not 50% in year one. But it will be 50% once revenues catch up.

DutchShamrock is offline  
Old
10-18-2012, 05:42 PM
  #825
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronx,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverfish View Post
Bill Daly on the Unions 50/50 deal...



Quote:
"The Union told us that they had not yet 'run the numbers.' We did."

.................................................. ..............

Ih8theislanders 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 05:59 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.