I disagree. Budget teams would be thrilled. They meet the cap floor and are only paying these players minimal salaries. I makes them extremely enticing for trade IMO. The only one who can't benefit is the original team if a player retires. Simple is that.
Most players at that point in their career i'm sure would rather enjoy themselves on the couch already have collected millions by then. If not it helps a budget friendly team who pay them the minimal salary and have count towards there cap. If the player is detrimental to the team they can bury them in the minors and it still works out.
Perhaps I wasn't so clear. If at the very end of their career, and still playing productively on a lower salary than cap hit, then I agree it could be attractive to a NYI type of team. But if a Gomez or Redden type trade occurs and the player goes south then it's not so good for the acquiring team because those guys aren't walking away from good money.
Just using Luongo as an example he is guaranteed $6.7M for the next six years. Then 3.3, 1.6, 1.0, 1.0. He's already 33. If he doesn't remain a top goaltender until he is 39 (maybe even 40) any new team is going to be left holding the bag because he is not walking out on that kind of money.
If I understand correctly, under the current NHL offer, burying a guy in the minors will still count against the current team.
The cap-trading thing seems like it's set up poorly. Instead of using x million as a maximum, it should be based off of a % of the cap or something. As revenues and salaries inflate, it will become an issue. I mean, I guess it could be a relatively easy renegotiation, but it seems like otherwise it would ensure that the next CBA needs some changes and is not simply a copy and paste.
2 year ELC is kind of interesting too. It seems like before they typically wanted ELCs longer. Maybe they hope players will be less established and thus forced to sign a small "prove yourself" 2nd contract as RFA? Because the problem is clearly the huge second contracts some players are getting.
The cap-trading thing seems like it's set up poorly. Instead of using x million as a maximum, it should be based off of a % of the cap or something. As revenues and salaries inflate, it will become an issue. I mean, I guess it could be a relatively easy renegotiation, but it seems like otherwise it would ensure that the next CBA needs some changes and is not simply a copy and paste.
2 year ELC is kind of interesting too. It seems like before they typically wanted ELCs longer. Maybe they hope players will be less established and thus forced to sign a small "prove yourself" 2nd contract as RFA? Because the problem is clearly the huge second contracts some players are getting.
There's an explanation up on NHL.com - the plan is to reduce the value of the second contracts. Most players aren't established enough to warrant a big raise coming off the 2nd year of the ELC so they won't get the mega deals, but those that are (which are the stars who are driving the NHLPA as usual) will get paid earlier. Kind of a bribe to the people who "matter", really.
Quote:
(1) We have withdrawn our initial proposal that would have provided Clubs with an option to extend the terms of Entry Level contracts, and instead are proposing to reduce the duration of the Entry Level System from three years to two years, thereby allowing entering NHL Players an earlier opportunity to become Restricted Free Agents. This will free up more money currently committed to Entry Level Players in their third years who are no longer legitimate NHL prospects and will also allow talented NHL prospects an opportunity to negotiate non-ELS contracts earlier in their careers.
(2) We have withdrawn our initial proposal to eliminate Salary Arbitration. We are instead proposing to maintain the Salary Arbitration mechanism, and are further proposing that the rights of Players and Clubs to elect Salary Arbitration be made mutual. Moreover, we are proposing to revise the eligibility criteria for Salary Arbitration to five years of professional experience (instead of the current four years), the same criteria as existed under the 1994-2004 CBA.
(3) We have withdrawn our initial proposal to revise the eligibility requirements for Unrestricted Free Agency to 10 Accrued Seasons, and are instead proposing a modest single year adjustment to 28 years of age or 8 Accrued Seasons. This proposal still allows for the possibility of early UFA status for Players -- as early as age 26.
All three of these system proposals are designed to shift the current allocation of Players' Share dollars away from "second contracts" and toward "third and subsequent contracts" to ensure what we believe to be a more equitable and effective allocation of Players' Share dollars to more proven, established Players who are playing in the prime of their NHL careers.
I still think there is going to be a season soon. Both sides seem to be acting like adults now, after that first real offer was made. I'm confident that the season will start in November.
Nope anything over 10 years is absolutely insane because the likely-hood of that deal working out well for the team is pretty small.
hopefully a deal gets done soon there's no reason not to now unless this is a dick measuring contest
That's exactly what I'm worried about. With the rhetoric from Bettman and Fehr it seems like it is a measuring contest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducks DVM
There's an explanation up on NHL.com - the plan is to reduce the value of the second contracts. Most players aren't established enough to warrant a big raise coming off the 2nd year of the ELC so they won't get the mega deals, but those that are (which are the stars who are driving the NHLPA as usual) will get paid earlier. Kind of a bribe to the people who "matter", really.
Not mentioned in there, but what I got out of it was that they're also using the 2-year ELC as a carrot to say "hey you get another year of RFA, so let us take away a year of UFA."
The thing that makes me mad is the *****ing that went on when the PA submitted proposals, and the NHL turned them down. And now the the shoe is on the other foot, and we're supposed to still feel sorry for the PA when they reject an offer that seemed pretty fair.
pretty obvious the owners are not gonna budge off getting to 50% quickly...
pretty obvious the pa doesn't want to go to 50% at all.
i really don't get the pa's plan. when most team's are losing less money with no season than they would with current revenue splits, how does the pa think this hold out tactic is going to work?
At the end of the day the players have more to lose because of their short careers and therefore less leverage. The owners can wait out the players longer than the players can wait out the owners.
However, it's not hard to understand the players POV. In the last CBA the players pretty much gave up everything. The owners got a 24% rollback, a cap, ELCs and whatever else. And, since then Betmann has been touting how successful the league has been at growing revenues. Appx 50% since the last CBA. But now the owners come along and tell the players they want more give backs?
I can understand the players telling the owners, "you've got an internal problem you need to fix" (aka revenue sharing). It does seem as though the league's attitude is that since some teams are struggling financially the players need to give back so that the marginal teams can do better which of course leads to the stronger teams doing even much better.
As I said at the start, the owners hold all the leverage but I understand the players POV and frustration.
pretty obvious the owners are not gonna budge off getting to 50% quickly...
pretty obvious the pa doesn't want to go to 50% at all.
i really don't get the pa's plan. when most team's are losing less money with no season than they would with current revenue splits, how does the pa think this hold out tactic is going to work?
I was contemplating similarly about what the PA is thinking as well. This is the same PA that didn't want a salary cap/floor and held out one whole year to lose. Yet in doing so, they were able to increase visibility of the NHL product due to closer parity in teams with seven different SCF winner the past seven years as proof. More positive exposure (winning) equals more fans, adverts, and better tv deals.
Now, we're saying the league is a $3.3 billion business. That's business without being exposed nationally because we're no longer a part of ESPN. Why is that? Because of the lockout, ESPN sees the NHL as a weak product and offers a cheaper contract than OLN/Versus/NBCSports. The league needed money and took the deal. But that's like you have a product and instead of having it sold at a Target/Walmart/Costco it's being sold at a CVS.
So now we're in the same boat. Teams are hemorrhaging, but the PA could care less. They have their own agenda, again, and will eventually lose. But who loses is, again, the league. We need teams to survive; not lose millions which can affect small team markets who may have to relocate or possible contraction. Do you think players care where they play or they will play were the money is at? 57% of the total revenue with guaranteed contracts that allowed 10 years worth in length to which if the NHL revenue is actually more than projected, then the players will also share in that increase is the PA's stance of getting screwed? Really?!
That's as bad as Paul Kariya saying to the Ducks give me my $10 million, but if you don't give me my $10 millioin then I'll go somewhere else for even less for my own benefit. Forget that the Ducks are a small market team and wanted to surround Kariya with better talent, but could not afford the $10 million price tag and yet come up with about $7 million. In fact, this is exactly how it feels. Big market teams and their fans can't comprehend this.
pretty obvious the owners are not gonna budge off getting to 50% quickly...
pretty obvious the pa doesn't want to go to 50% at all.
i really don't get the pa's plan. when most team's are losing less money with no season than they would with current revenue splits, how does the pa think this hold out tactic is going to work?
Your making an assumption we do not have information to support one way or the other. If your premise is correct then I agree with your statement. I'm not so sure the assumption is correct though.
Your making an assumption we do not have information to support one way or the other. If your premise is correct then I agree with your statement. I'm not so sure the assumption is correct though.
The owners are businessmen - they wouldn't lose money out of spite. If they enter a long lockout it's a given that a majority of the owners feel that financially they're better off not playing than they would be playing. If they cave it is likely not the case.
And when you look at the fact that the players lost a full year for the privilege of taking the same deal they were offered last time, it's easy to see how they might be offended. However, when you look at the astronomical jump in their average salary (1.83M in '03, 1.46 in '05, 2.4M in '11), the huge jump in second contract value, the lowering of UFA to only 27/7 years, and the fact that the league went from 66% of the teams being money losers to 50-60% being money losers, you realize the only thing they actually lost was face and a year of self-inflicted salary loss. The system is still broken.
Your making an assumption we do not have information to support one way or the other. If your premise is correct then I agree with your statement. I'm not so sure the assumption is correct though.
no assumption. a large majority of teams barely break even or lose money every year. that is with the current revenue sharing.
if a team is breaking even or losing money, the lockout doesn't cost them much because you are saving the money that would be spent on your biggest budget cost - the players.
what the two sides want in the new cba...pretty obvious.
stated problems
nhl - pa proposals don't come anywhere near 50 - 50...
pa proposal's numbers won't ever reach 50 - 50...
pa proposal's have not moved off initial offer of no immediate decrease in hrr
sharing
pa - nhls offers require immediate hrr movement toward 50 50.
nhl revenue up why should the players have to give up hrr.
nhl needs to fix revenue sharing between teams.
90% of the issue is the hrr split and what the two sides want has not deviated much from the onset of negotiations. what they have said publicly supports this.
the players are going to lose this, and lose it badly because the owners are at the point where it will soon be more profitable (or less expensive) to sell their teams, move them, or just shut them down than to pay the current revenue splits.
points the pa is not seeing clearly or ignoring.
revenue going up is meaningless if your costs are going up.
player salaries are pure profit
team profits only come after paying costs.
points the nhl is not seeing
their revenue sharing plan is ******** and needs to be reworked to be effective.
no assumption. a large majority of teams barely break even or lose money every year. that is with the current revenue sharing.
Well according to Pierre McGuire, who unlike Forbes actually has sources and doesn't estimate everything, 17 teams are making money (10 are making large amounts of money and 7 are making money but not an extreme amount) and 13 are losing money. I think the players need to get to 50:50 eventually but to ask for them to give that all up straight away is ridiculous, it should be phased in over the term of the CBA. The bigger issue is the revenue sharing system which needs a complete overhaul.
As for the NHL, it seems a bit hypocritical that they're demanding the players give back by going to 50:50 straight away yet year after year they're continuing to throw away millions of dollars to keep the Phoenix Coyotes afloat when they should have been relocated years ago.
The owners are businessmen - they wouldn't lose money out of spite. If they enter a long lockout it's a given that a majority of the owners feel that financially they're better off not playing than they would be playing. If they cave it is likely not the case.
And when you look at the fact that the players lost a full year for the privilege of taking the same deal they were offered last time, it's easy to see how they might be offended. However, when you look at the astronomical jump in their average salary (1.83M in '03, 1.46 in '05, 2.4M in '11), the huge jump in second contract value, the lowering of UFA to only 27/7 years, and the fact that the league went from 66% of the teams being money losers to 50-60% being money losers, you realize the only thing they actually lost was face and a year of self-inflicted salary loss. The system is still broken.
No argument that the players came out better last time than most would have expected. And I absolutely thought they were way off base with their demands last time.
As to who is making money and who isn't, well, that's always been the mystery in pro sports. The only thing I think I can say with certainty is that I believe it takes only eight owners to veto any deal. So any deal that could be good for the league overall might not see the light of day if the wealthy teams felt it would upset their gravy train. But I admit I don't have all the facts.
At the end of the day, I'm tired of all the sports labor issues I've seen. I'm at the point of saying to both sides, wake me when it's over and let me know when the games begin. I have little respect for either side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gratefulyours
no assumption. a large majority of teams barely break even or lose money every year. that is with the current revenue sharing.
No offense, but you saying so does not make it so. That kind of information (and I'm speaking of what they pay taxes on, not what they publicly state to garner sympathy) is not going to be made public. And as we all know, owners make a lot of money on things not defined as HRR.
Well according to Pierre McGuire, who unlike Forbes actually has sources and doesn't estimate everything, 17 teams are making money (10 are making large amounts of money and 7 are making money but not an extreme amount) and 13 are losing money.
i would count that as 20 teams around breaking even or losing money.
2/3 around the break even point or losing money would be a majority of teams...which is what i said.
The thing that makes me mad is the *****ing that went on when the PA submitted proposals, and the NHL turned them down. And now the the shoe is on the other foot, and we're supposed to still feel sorry for the PA when they reject an offer that seemed pretty fair.
It's been stunning to witness fans and media turn off their brains and swallow up the NHL's talking points out of an insatiable desire to have an 82-game schedule. There's been way too much "oh, they went 50/50, take the deal boys!"; it's a sentiment that exists without regard for the contractual concessions the players would have to make, the revenue sharing system and other considerations that make "50/50" an unbalanced deal.
We ask these men to sacrifice their bodies on a nightly basis. We ask them to sweat and fight and bleed, to show resolve that many of us couldn't imagine having in pressure situations.
And then we expect them to fold like origami when the League finally makes a mature, quasi-equitable proposal?
Again, it's a credit to Bettman and the NHL (and Frank Luntz) that the proposal and the PR blitz worked this week. But like Fehr said: If you're a "greedy players" person, that characterization doesn't hit the facts very well.
