HFBoards

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

CBA Talk II: Shut up and give me YOUR money!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2012, 07:00 PM
  #576
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Wow, is that stupid. I can see where the NHL is coming from but contracts should be honoured 100% in good faith.
There was some linkage in the last deal in the form of escrow. The players got most if not all of their escrow money back though.

What about the other side of it, if revenues were 10% above projected, do the players get a 10% bonus on top of their salaries?

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:36 PM
  #577
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,530
vCash: 883
So the league and PA have agreed to a June 15 (or 48hrs after Cup is awarded) for free agency to begin.

As well as being able to trade cap space.

Should make for interesting trades.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:39 PM
  #578
MajorCanuck
Cup Please
 
MajorCanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Surrey, BC
Posts: 685
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidSnake View Post
So the league and PA have agreed to a June 15 (or 48hrs after Cup is awarded) for free agency to begin.

As well as being able to trade cap space.

Should make for interesting trades.
OMG, by Florida's excess cap space for the next 10 years right now

MajorCanuck is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:41 PM
  #579
LiquidSnake
Agent of Chaos...
 
LiquidSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,530
vCash: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCanuck View Post
OMG, by Florida's excess cap space for the next 10 years right now
Not sure how it will work.

Also there will be no re entry waivers.

LiquidSnake is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:54 PM
  #580
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
I agree that teams were just operating under the old CBA and protecting competitive advantage when for example Minnesota ignored the NHL's 5 year limit negotiating position and offered those deals to Parise and Suter, or Philly's offer sheet to Weber. That said, you have to admit that the optics were terrible.

If a 5% variance is all that is needed, why are they pushing a 5 year limit on contracts? It's to stop players in their prime from cashing in and securing their future into their late 30's early 40's when their negotiating power is greatly diminished.

I think the way out of that loophole is to stop averaging the cap hit over the term of the deal. If Weber makes $14M in real money, that should be his cap hit this year. The variance provision would no longer be needed. The arbitrary punishment for current deals on the books would no longer be needed. Philly wouldn't have made such a ridiculous front loaded offer in the first place if it would have cost them a $14M cap hit for the next two seasons. This would unfairly hit Nashville if applied retroactively, so grandfather the current deals under the averaging rules, but any deal made after the CBA would no longer be averaged out.
Why even a 5% variance? Might as well make the each year's salary equal to the cap hit. With Lu, and I apologize for my prior post, since I screwed up the numbers, but if he retires with 3 years and $3.6 million left on his 12 year $64 million contract, the $16 million of cap hit remaining also goes away. But, that means that $12.4 million of the salary he was paid never hits the salary cap.

This should no be allowed anymore. Every cent a player pockets should at some point in time count against the salary cap. Easiest way to do it is to match salary to cap hit. Don't care if the NHL changes it so that it's no longer an average

If that occurs, then the player has to play in order to get paid their contract. None of this play 75% of the term of the deal, while making 90%+ of the value of the contract. That's not right.

As for contract term, from an insurance point of view, makes sense. I can see the NHL lifting this up a bit since the NBA has a term length too of about 7 years or so. UFA age, how many top players have changed teams in the 7 seasons of the old CBA?

Street Hawk is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:02 PM
  #581
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 27,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Does anyone seriously believe if the league said, "Hey, we like that 2nd proposal that would get us to 50% in year 3. Let's do that, but with linkage" that the PA would not negotiate on those terms?

The idea that they wouldn't is insane. The PA is bargaining like normal parties bargain in these situations. The NHL is not.
No they are not. The PA has not proposed anything other than the dividing of revenue and never formalized a full proposal.

LickTheEnvelope is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:46 PM
  #582
Edonator
The Mightiest Club
 
Edonator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vancouver
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 3,814
vCash: 500
Gotta think that some of these smaller market teams with smaller fan bases will be looking to make splashes once hockey starts up again.

Spectacular.

Edonator is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:51 PM
  #583
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,207
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
There was some linkage in the last deal in the form of escrow. The players got most if not all of their escrow money back though.

What about the other side of it, if revenues were 10% above projected, do the players get a 10% bonus on top of their salaries?
That's a good point. But I still don't like the idea of linkage. Salaries should be honoured 100% no matter what. No more, no less.


Last edited by Reverend Mayhem: 11-20-2012 at 09:07 PM.
Reverend Mayhem is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:32 PM
  #584
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Does anyone seriously believe if the league said, "Hey, we like that 2nd proposal that would get us to 50% in year 3. Let's do that, but with linkage" that the PA would not negotiate on those terms?

The idea that they wouldn't is insane. The PA is bargaining like normal parties bargain in these situations. The NHL is not.


The league has offered 50% and a soft landing with linkage and a change on contractual rights(NHL is asking for too much, but that's another topic). Do you know what the next offer was? It was de-linked.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:57 PM
  #585
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post


The league has offered 50% and a soft landing with linkage and a change on contractual rights(NHL is asking for too much, but that's another topic). Do you know what the next offer was? It was de-linked.
The league offered 50% with a questionable make whole provision for ONE season. If they were willing to agree to scale to 50% and work off of the PA proposal, they'd be much farther along.

This entire process is being bogged down by Bettman's egomaniacal need to work off his his version of the offer.

I also don't understand why people keep expecting the PA is going to cave on the revenue stream before the league gives anything on contracts. What would their leverage be?

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:07 PM
  #586
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
The league offered 50% with a questionable make whole provision for ONE season. If they were willing to agree to scale to 50% and work off of the PA proposal, they'd be much farther along.

This entire process is being bogged down by Bettman's egomaniacal need to work off his his version of the offer.

I also don't understand why people keep expecting the PA is going to cave on the revenue stream before the league gives anything on contracts. What would their leverage be?
The only thing that is important to the NHL is keeping linkage(something they fought to the death of a season for) and getting the PA down to 50%. Once the PA offers a linked 50% offer, contractual demands will be given up.

I'm absolutely positive if the PA formally offered a linked, 50% HRR, with a 4 year soft landing, the NHL will take the offer with minimal contract changes.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:39 PM
  #587
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
The only thing that is important to the NHL is keeping linkage(something they fought to the death of a season for) and getting the PA down to 50%. Once the PA offers a linked 50% offer, contractual demands will be given up.

I'm absolutely positive if the PA formally offered a linked, 50% HRR, with a 4 year soft landing, the NHL will take the offer with minimal contract changes.
Disgraceful that the NHL would turn these negotiations into a heated war with their first offer if that's really the case. I think you're wrong, the NHL was going in for the kill. The players did what they had to do by getting a shrewd negotiator and here we are. Blaming the players at this point is really naive. They aren't asking for anything, they're just trying not to give everything back all at once. At some point the NHL has to take some responsibility for making money, it can't all come out of the players pockets.

Scurr is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 10:54 PM
  #588
Hammer79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
The only thing that is important to the NHL is keeping linkage(something they fought to the death of a season for) and getting the PA down to 50%. Once the PA offers a linked 50% offer, contractual demands will be given up.

I'm absolutely positive if the PA formally offered a linked, 50% HRR, with a 4 year soft landing, the NHL will take the offer with minimal contract changes.
You seem to be arguing for the owners position, but the deal you'd like to see is closer to the players position. No way the Bettman would accept that deal with no changes to the loophole that produced the Luongo, Kovalchuk, and Weber deals. Taking away negotiating power from the players by limiting term, increasing UFA eligibility age, taking away salary arbitration, are just trophies that he wants to extract from the PA. Like the poster above me said, he's going in for the kill.

Hammer79 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:08 PM
  #589
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
Disgraceful that the NHL would turn these negotiations into a heated war with their first offer if that's really the case. I think you're wrong, the NHL was going in for the kill. The players did what they had to do by getting a shrewd negotiator and here we are. Blaming the players at this point is really naive. They aren't asking for anything, they're just trying not to give everything back all at once. At some point the NHL has to take some responsibility for making money, it can't all come out of the players pockets.
How am I wrong? The offer the NHL proposed was 50/50, 2year soft landing, linked, multiple minor issues changed that needed to be fixed as noted by both parties. The immediate offer afterwards was a delinked offer.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:12 PM
  #590
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,207
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
I still stand by my idea of give and take.

Reverend Mayhem is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:14 PM
  #591
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
How am I wrong? The offer the NHL proposed was 50/50, 2year soft landing, linked, multiple minor issues changed that needed to be fixed as noted by both parties. The immediate offer afterwards was a delinked offer.
No, the NHL also said with that deal that the caveat was the they would not negotiate on ANY contract issues. They said that as they proposed it. It's simply an untenable, bad faith-negotiation by the league. It's an obscene power play that has backfired. Bettman's already meager legacy is irreparably tarnished. Who has been worse in any sport over the past two decades?

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:19 PM
  #592
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
You seem to be arguing for the owners position, but the deal you'd like to see is closer to the players position. No way the Bettman would accept that deal with no changes to the loophole that produced the Luongo, Kovalchuk, and Weber deals. Taking away negotiating power from the players by limiting term, increasing UFA eligibility age, taking away salary arbitration, are just trophies that he wants to extract from the PA. Like the poster above me said, he's going in for the kill.
The loop hole, such as the long term cap reducing contracts have been closed with the proposed 5% variance rule. This has been tentatively agreed upon by both parties.

My post that you quoted was under the assumption, or the already agreed upon rules to close loop holes.

The league has already proposed a 50/50, soft landing(2 years), linked proposal, with change in contractual rights(in the favour of the NHL).

What the NHLPA should be negotiating, is the contractual rights and how long the soft landing is. It is extremely frustrating to see the NHLPA go after the linkage when the league is adamant about retaining linkage.

If the NHLPA truly wants a concession trade (7% decrease of HRR for X) from the NHL, they should be negotiating to trade the 7% decrease for better contractual rights. All targeting linkage is going to do is lose everyone money. There is no way the NHL will give up certainty.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:28 PM
  #593
Chubros
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammer79 View Post
There was some linkage in the last deal in the form of escrow. The players got most if not all of their escrow money back though.

What about the other side of it, if revenues were 10% above projected, do the players get a 10% bonus on top of their salaries?
That's exactly how it worked. I believe the players received more than the face value of their contracts in two of the years that the last CBA was in effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
That's a good point. But I still don't like the idea of linkage. Salaries should be honoured 100% no matter what. No more, no less.
A few points here:

- That the players' contracts were already honoured at a percentage of face value under the old CBA is why many find the PA's repeated public calls for the league to 'honour existing contracts' nothing more than an attempt to curry public favour.

- If you think of the old system, if all the teams spent to the cap limit, the players' share of HRR would have greatly exceeded 57%, and if too many teams spent below the median, then the players would have received less than 57%. The escrow correction is basically necessary for hard linkage.

- Without that mechanism, all the frontloaded deals would pretty much have blown the cap out of the water and made it meaningless. Escrow and hard linkage basically stopped the last CBA from becoming more of a mess than it was. It mitigated the damage done by all the loopholes that were found and exploited by teams, agents, and players.

- The PA had a policy of choosing to inflate the cap each year by invoking their escalator clause. This had two effects: the first is that it made it less likely that players would receive 100% of their contracts. The second is that the PA, by pushing up the value of new deals, was knowingly benefiting the minority of players who were FAs at the expense of players with existing deals.

Taking all that together, I think the PA's strategy becomes clear here: pump up the face value of contracts, then fight to scrap linkage and escrow and to retain some way for players to ink the mega deals. If they accomplish this, then what happens if the teams hand out contracts that in sum exceed the agreed upon fixed limit? There's nothing the league can do but pay out shares of HRR in percentages that approach the pre-cap days of 74%. Say goodbye to parity, and say goodbye to profit.

It should be recognized that only one side in this negotiation is fighting for drastic system changes.

Chubros is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:29 PM
  #594
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
No, the NHL also said with that deal that the caveat was the they would not negotiate on ANY contract issues. They said that as they proposed it. It's simply an untenable, bad faith-negotiation by the league. It's an obscene power play that has backfired. Bettman's already meager legacy is irreparably tarnished. Who has been worse in any sport over the past two decades?
The moment we see a formal linked offer from the PA, we will see an NHL season. The league won't kill off a season for contract rights. They will for linkage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post
- That the players' contracts were already honoured at a percentage of face value under the old CBA is why many find the PA's repeated public calls for the league to 'honour existing contracts' nothing more than an attempt to curry public favour.

- If you think of the old system, if all the teams spent to the cap limit, the players' share of HRR would have greatly exceeded 57%, and if too many teams spent below the median, then the players would have received less than 57%. The escrow correction is basically necessary for hard linkage.

- Without that mechanism, all the frontloaded deals would pretty much have blown the cap out of the water and made it meaningless. Escrow and hard linkage basically stopped the last CBA from becoming more of a mess than it was. It mitigated the damage done by all the loopholes that were found and exploited by teams, agents, and players.

- The PA had a policy of choosing to inflate the cap each year by invoking their escalator clause. This had two effects: the first is that it made it less likely that players would receive 100% of their contracts. The second is that the PA, by pushing up the value of new deals, was knowingly benefiting the minority of players who were FAs at the expense of players with existing deals.

Taking all that together, I think the PA's strategy becomes clear here: pump up the face value of contracts, then fight to scrap linkage and escrow and to retain some way for players to ink the mega deals. If they accomplish this, then what happens if the teams hand out contracts that in sum exceed the agreed upon fixed limit? There's nothing the league can do but pay out shares of HRR in percentages that approach the pre-cap days of 74%. Say goodbye to parity, and say goodbye to profit.

It should be recognized that only one side in this negotiation is fighting for drastic system changes.
Great points, especially the bolded.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:30 PM
  #595
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
The loop hole, such as the long term cap reducing contracts have been closed with the proposed 5% variance rule. This has been tentatively agreed upon by both parties.

My post that you quoted was under the assumption, or the already agreed upon rules to close loop holes.

The league has already proposed a 50/50, soft landing(2 years), linked proposal, with change in contractual rights(in the favour of the NHL).

What the NHLPA should be negotiating, is the contractual rights and how long the soft landing is. It is extremely frustrating to see the NHLPA go after the linkage when the league is adamant about retaining linkage.

If the NHLPA truly wants a concession trade (7% decrease of HRR for X) from the NHL, they should be negotiating to trade the 7% decrease for better contractual rights. All targeting linkage is going to do is lose everyone money. There is no way the NHL will give up certainty.
This isn't the PA's responsibility when the league is the one asking for everything. If the league wants a linked deal at 50% and 5% variance AND caps on contract lengths, then they should be offering the players greater contractual freedoms: earlier UFA, better arbitration rights, less restrictive ELC contracts, etc. Expecting the players to just give in on variance, contract lengths, and give the league everything it wants on linked HRR split is preposterous, especially after the NHL's duplicitous, ham-fisted, shameful attempt to propose new HRR definitions in order to look good in the media.

The NHL has behaved boorishly and attempted to claim the moral high ground at the same time. The PA should absolutely ram this down their throats until they beg them for a deal. If the players aren't going to get anything, what's the point? Even in the last "ass kicking", the players got the UFA age lowered by two years.

I just don't think your position defending the league is tenable.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:31 PM
  #596
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
The moment we see a formal linked offer from the PA, we will see an NHL season. The league won't kill off a season for contract rights. They will for linkage.
You're either very obtuse or you're trying to make a point. The PA will not be first to move on this. Why would they until they have a reason to do so?

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:34 PM
  #597
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
No, the NHL also said with that deal that the caveat was the they would not negotiate on ANY contract issues. They said that as they proposed it. It's simply an untenable, bad faith-negotiation by the league. It's an obscene power play that has backfired. Bettman's already meager legacy is irreparably tarnished. Who has been worse in any sport over the past two decades?
Fehr.

shortshorts is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:37 PM
  #598
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chubros View Post

- That the players' contracts were already honoured at a percentage of face value under the old CBA is why many find the PA's repeated public calls for the league to 'honour existing contracts' nothing more than an attempt to curry public favour.
Yes, and if they give it to them again, the league will ask for it in perpetuity every single time a labour dispute arises. Giving it to them every time is as nonsensical in this situation as it is in basically every labour dispute, short of the very welfare of the business being at stake, which is assuredly not the case right now with the NHL.

The players made a huge exception last time because the game's economics were in a mess. They're not now. The NHL is making heaps of cash and the robber barons want more, and they don't want to give anything to get it.

Cry me a river if Comcast and their 70 billion dollars aren't making more profit off the Flyers, or if the morally decrepit Philip Anschutz isn't squeezing more profit from the LA Kings. There isn't hockey right now because a bunch of greedy profiteers wanted to go in for the kill on the PA and are getting smacked around by Donald Fehr. Boo hoo.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:38 PM
  #599
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 9,455
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortshorts View Post
Fehr.
Fehr isn't a commissioner, and he oversaw a deal in baseball that has baseball wildly more popular and healthier than it has been at any points in its history -- and it's not even close. He's a mercenary, for sure, but I don't think the PA is wrong to fight this fight.

Proto is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 11:40 PM
  #600
shortshorts
The OG Kesler Hater
 
shortshorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,656
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
This isn't the PA's responsibility when the league is the one asking for everything. If the league wants a linked deal at 50% and 5% variance AND caps on contract lengths, then they should be offering the players greater contractual freedoms: earlier UFA, better arbitration rights, less restrictive ELC contracts, etc. Expecting the players to just give in on variance, contract lengths, and give the league everything it wants on linked HRR split is preposterous, especially after the NHL's duplicitous, ham-fisted, shameful attempt to propose new HRR definitions in order to look good in the media.

The NHL has behaved boorishly and attempted to claim the moral high ground at the same time. The PA should absolutely ram this down their throats until they beg them for a deal. If the players aren't going to get anything, what's the point? Even in the last "ass kicking", the players got the UFA age lowered by two years.

I just don't think your position defending the league is tenable.
Whens the last time someone offered a good for everyone offer and the offer wasn't negotiated? Yes, it sucks for fans to watch two parties kill off a season to try to get the better of the other. That's just how it works. Everything you have just listed is a negotiable number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
You're either very obtuse or you're trying to make a point. The PA will not be first to move on this. Why would they until they have a reason to do so?
The PA will give in before the league does. You'd be naive to think otherwise.

shortshorts 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 11:28 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.