The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Not necessarily. The cap floor forces teams to spend up to a certain amount which of course artificially inflates salaries. You could say the cap offsets this, but the "cap offset" is made far less effective due to cap circumvention, which was first employed by the big market teams who could actually afford to pay more than the cap then made by smaller markets if they wanted to keep up (they had at the very least a floor to stay above anyway).
The only way to get past the frontloading issue would be the lower budget teams getting the "lifetime contract" players on the tail end of their deals but of course it would take a few more years for that to start happening.
And to be fair only what, a dozen players actually had contracts clearly meant to cheat the cap? I'd argue all other inflated deals are a result of the floor.
I think one area the players would easily move is the lowering in the floor cap based on a yearly review.
I think one area the players would easily move is the lowering in the floor cap based on a yearly review.
If the poor teams got increased revenue sharing, why would we lower the cap floor? Everyone that is pro owners points to the NFL and say they're at 50 / 50 and split all revenue but every team in the NFL has to spend to the Cap.
actually the Swiss league pays really good... I think you do need to chill tho.. you are going overboard in your retorts... but it is a clash of opinions so it's all good
They only allow so many imports, and how many NHL players can make the jump. Not as many as you want to pretend.
the player is worth whatever he can get... no one is twisting the owners arm to sign him. the onus is all on the owner when making signings he can't afford
Well, they kind of are twisting the owners arm to sign when they hold out for more money or sign an offer sheet, ie Shea Webber. They are forced into signing contracts that may be too risky in terms of the return on investment. If they sign the player to a big contract but he doesn't perform or the team doesn't do well, then who's fault is that? Not the owners fault that the players didn't perform. Maybe they should be able to fire the player or give him a pay decrease? If the player did well but the team didn't, that's not necessarily the player's fault either. That's why I'm saying you can't put that all on the owners.
If the player is worth whatever he can get, then why is everyone complaining that the owners are "taking" too much? Common sense says the CBA will be similar to the owners' last offer, and even if its not, it won't necessarily be what the players are looking for. Owners can ask for whatever they can get in this CBA just like the players can ask for whatever they can get in a contract.
As a fan, this process has been entirely frustrating. There's been relatively no real negotiating. Both sides have an idea of what they want and are simply waiting for the other to blink. Heck of an easy way to lose games considering the egos and information asymmetry involved.
It's a shame because there are an infinite number of potential solutions to small market woes that could be agreeable if both sides were wiling to get creative. Relocation, reducing the # of games in a season, redefining HRR, increasing the distance between the midpoint and ceiling/floor, luxury taxes, calculating the midpoint using median revenues, so on and so forth.
Look, its perfectly within the owners' rights to hold out for a deal they like. It's their money. They can invest it how they see fit. And it's perfectly within the players' rights to not sign on a piece of paper when they don't whats on it. Prudent? Maybe, maybe not. But here we are.
Wouldn't mind seeing a mediator get involved sooner than later. Because without one, it appears this staring contest is going to last a bit longer.
The contracts handed out by the GM's is a variable contract. Some years the players will make less on their contracts than what is stated and some years the make more than the stated amount. The only reason a fixed number is given is to determine the cap hit for each team. An example of this is in the last CBA two years the players income was greater than their contract amount and five years it was less than their stated contract amounts. Theplayers asking for honoring their contracts is mostly a PR move.
As a fan, this process has been entirely frustrating. There's been relatively no real negotiating. Both sides have an idea of what they want and are simply waiting for the other to blink.
I don't see the NHL as having operated that way.
NHL clearly demanded linkage. Started out at 43, went to 46, then 48, then 50, each offer separated from the last by a couple weeks. Extraneous issues are all extraneous.
Seems pretty normal, and clear in its indication of exactly what they want. If I were Donald Fehr, I wouldn't be scratching my head wondering at the NHL's negotiating strategy.
NHL clearly demanded linkage. Started out at 43, went to 46, then 48, then 50, each offer separated from the last by a couple weeks. Extraneous issues are all extraneous.
Seems pretty normal, and clear in its indication of exactly what they want. If I were Donald Fehr, I wouldn't be scratching my head wondering at the NHL's negotiating strategy.
If the owner's goal from the get-go was 50/50 linkage, then they're not really negotiating are they? That's what Fehr means when he says they're waiting for the NHL to start negotiating. He wants the league to consider other solutions besides cutting the players' percentage.
I'm not saying doing that won't fix the issue. But the NHLPA doesn't want to work with that framework. And the NHL hasn't shown any willingness to budge from it. Negotiating? Meh.
If the owner's goal from the get-go was 50/50 linkage, then they're not really negotiating are they? That's what Fehr means when they he say's waiting for the NHL to start negotiating. He wants the league to consider other solutions besides cutting the players' percentage.
I'm not saying doing that won't fix the issue. But the NHLPA doesn't want to work with that framework. And the NHL hasn't shown any willingness to budge from it. Negotiating? Meh.
Haha getting to 50/50 at year 6 is so fair for the owners who sign their paychecks. Still linkage is the real issue here as Fehr's offers are meaningless without it.
If the owner's goal from the get-go was 50/50 linkage, then they're not really negotiating are they? That's what Fehr means when they he say's waiting for the NHL to start negotiating. He wants the league to consider other solutions besides cutting the players' percentage.
I'm not saying doing that won't fix the issue. But the NHLPA doesn't want to work with that framework. And the NHL hasn't shown any willingness to budge from it. Negotiating? Meh.
If the only thing that counts as "negotiating" is either dropping linkage or abandoning the desire to cut player percentage, wow.
I didn't realize the players had the NHL so hard by the balls.
Both sides agree that this is the most likely scenario. So why is the PA wasting the 1.7B they could have taken home this year again?
Pride?
I don't know. Ask Mr Fehr and the negotiating committee who I think are still angry about losing a season in 2004 and giving up all the "concessions" despite more than doubling salaries since then...
I don't know. Ask Mr Fehr and the negotiating committee who I think are still angry about losing a season in 2004 and giving up all the "concessions" despite more than doubling salaries since then...
If the owner's goal from the get-go was 50/50 linkage, then they're not really negotiating are they? That's what Fehr means when he says they're waiting for the NHL to start negotiating. He wants the league to consider other solutions besides cutting the players' percentage.
I'm not saying doing that won't fix the issue. But the NHLPA doesn't want to work with that framework. And the NHL hasn't shown any willingness to budge from it. Negotiating? Meh.
Nope the NHL changed their mind from the ludicrous summer offer (to the delight of everyone) and offered the 50/50 based on the last CBA with tweaks to UFA (1 year), trading caps, 2 years max entry deals... etc.
NHLPA wants to totally change terminology + change the way the NHL operates, including greater changes to revenue sharing (above what the NHL is proposing). Not going to happen.
If the only thing that counts as "negotiating" is either dropping linkage or abandoning the desire to cut player percentage, wow.
I didn't realize the players had the NHL so hard by the balls.
Is the only solution to league's small market financial issues to cut the players share down to 50%? All I'm saying is that neither side is budging from their framework. There's no creative talks going on, no willingness to find some middle ground somewhere.
I've been pro-owner this entire time. I still am. I don't unions should have this much bargaining power. But they do. And because they do, the NHL really has two options here: Get creative, or play the waiting game.
Is the only solution to league's small market financial issues to cut the players share down to 50%? All I'm saying is that neither side is budging from their framework. There's no creative talks going on, no willingness to find some middle ground somewhere.
I've been pro-owner this entire time. I still am. I don't unions should have this much bargaining power. But they do. And because they do, the NHL really has two options here: Get creative, or play the waiting game.
If the players have a more creative solution, isn't their job to put it forward?
