HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

A Bad Lawyer Can Drag A Case For Years, A Good Lawyer Even Longer (CBA/Lockout) XXVI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-11-2012, 07:27 PM
  #101
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
When there are 30 teams in the league willing to offer players contracts, how is even ZERO bargaining power possible? For instance, so did Parise had 1 single offer this July?

Fehr's spins make no sense.
I didn't get that either. He said that they'd have less teams to negotiate with. However, with a variance in place, theoretically, wouldn't that mean that MORE teams will be able to financially evaluate and participate in negotiations with star players on the market?


As far as I'm concerned, any long term front loaded contract is not a contract signed in good faith by the owner or the players. The owner will worry about the problem later but in the meantime will buy off the prime years of a top star while the player won't worry about the later years either because he's more concerned with getting 98% of his money sooner rather than later. That's not good faith by either party which is another reason I'd laugh at anyone who tries to argue that either side is negotiating based on principle, morals or good faith. Give me a break.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:31 PM
  #102
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOfNiagara View Post
My guess is Fehr has the players believing they will get that money back.
It is basically impossible. They'd have to take over every single member of the NHL owners bodysnatchers style. I think you were being sarcastic but I feel so bad for the players so I'm going to drive home some numbers here.

At a 55% flat share of revenues, the NHLPA would not recoup one quarter of a season for three years. And if you think the NHL is going to eventually cave to a flat 55%, you're crazy.

If they lose a whole season, even if the NHLPA were to magically get 60% of revenue (flat) it would take SEVEN YEARS to recoup that lost salary.

And all of this is with 5% growth. Imagine if the league revenues plateau.

This is so senseless.

mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:33 PM
  #103
uncleherman77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
Also for those of you who don't remember, the rhetoric we're hearing now even at it's worst sounds far less then the hate we were hearing between the two sides in the 04/05 lockout.

uncleherman77 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:34 PM
  #104
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
It is basically impossible. They'd have to take over every single member of the NHL owners bodysnatchers style.

At a 55% flat share of revenues, the NHLPA would not recoup one quarter of a season for three years. And if you think the NHL is going to eventually cave to a flat 55%, you're crazy.

If they lose a whole season, even if the NHLPA were to magically get 60% of revenue (flat) it would take SEVEN YEARS to recoup that lost salary.

And all of this is with 5% growth. Imagine if the league revenues plateau.

This is so senseless.
Like Mckenzie said, this has become a battle of principle with the PA and the players.

They waste more and more money as this goes on, just to get that extra inch.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:35 PM
  #105
rdawg1234
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncleherman77 View Post
Also for those of you who don't remember, the rhetoric we're hearing now even at it's worst sounds far less then the hate we were hearing between the two sides in the 04/05 lockout.
Although the players kept asking for Delinkage back then, and now they wanna bring delinkage back yet again.

rdawg1234 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:35 PM
  #106
stug*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,642
vCash: 500
A funny little site. This is how much the players have lost in salary.

**************************

And its ticking ^^

stug* is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:36 PM
  #107
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
I didn't get that either. He said that they'd have less teams to negotiate with. However, with a variance in place, theoretically, wouldn't that mean that MORE teams will be able to financially evaluate and participate in negotiations with star players on the market?


As far as I'm concerned, any long term front loaded contract is not a contract signed in good faith by the owner or the players. The owner will worry about the problem later but in the meantime will buy off the prime years of a top star while the player won't worry about the later years either because he's more concerned with getting 98% of his money sooner rather than later. That's not good faith by either party which is another reason I'd laugh at anyone who tries to argue that either side is negotiating based on principle, morals or good faith. Give me a break.
I like this post.

The part about zero rights and Fehr's comment about "everybody knows that" what he's saying is true, just over exaggerated. Running ANY business, the owner wants all the leverage - everyone does know this... it only helps the owner - makes sense. The player would have negotiating power, but substantially less. For example a team has 4M cap space available this year, but $10 over then next 5 years but now the team can only pay $4M per year (putting this 5% rule in place). Using the 5% rule, a team MUST have equal cap space available in each year of the deal, drastically limiting the amount of teams who can really negotiate on a contact. That being said, I agree with the owners here, I hate the back diving contracts. I think it's unfair, 5% may just be a little too low.

Both sides are equally guilty on those crazy long term deals. I think, however, if a team like Pitts wants to offer Crosby a 15yr $150M deal (just to exaggerate it) at $10/year. They should be able to and he should be able to accept that. I don't see why there would be an issue with the term when the deal is clearly not intended to get around any cap.

Steve is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:37 PM
  #108
uncleherman77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
Although the players kept asking for Delinkage back then, and now they wanna bring delinkage back yet again.
Back then they were asking for no cap period, even if it was delinked.

uncleherman77 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:37 PM
  #109
Captain Hook
Olli Määttä
 
Captain Hook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 14,500
vCash: 500
Still think a deal will get done. The players will get far worse offers once the season is totally lost. I think they know that but they also know that the league's best offer probably won't come until they are pushed to the brink of canceling the season.

I also think MLB Baseball is run far worse than the NHL.

Captain Hook is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:40 PM
  #110
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdawg1234 View Post
Like Mckenzie said, this has become a battle of principle with the PA and the players.

They waste more and more money as this goes on, just to get that extra inch.
But it's NOT a battle of principle, because no actual principle is being fulfilled here unless you count being bitter and petty.

Will this deter future work stoppages? No.

Will this result in substantially better free agent rights? No.

Will this result in the maintenance of a 57% split? No.

Will it benefit the 400+ NHL'ers whose contracts end in two years? No.

Will it, like the NFL lockout, result in an enhancement of the pension plan? No.

What exactly does it do then?

Meanwhile you are hurting the vast majority of your constituency.

The worst thing is, I know the mentality of hockey players. We play on a team and we have each other's backs on and off the ice. How are the players going to get out of this mess? We talk about a rebellion but I think that it's not as easy as people think because of the inherent mentality of the game.


Last edited by mossey3535: 11-11-2012 at 07:46 PM.
mossey3535 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:41 PM
  #111
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stug View Post
A funny little site. This is how much the players have lost in salary.

**************************

And its ticking ^^
Owners are pressuring Gary much more than they have before. No doubt some are losing money during the season, but some losing it now. Also, some of the owners who want to play are fed up of babysitting other owners that they feel can't run a business. I heard Doug MacLean say that Mike Illich told him and their owner in Florida he was fed up of their inability to run a franchise during the last lockout.

Players are losing a ton, no question. Owners are also losing a ton, ask the Leafs and Habs... Phoenix is saving a bundle though.

Steve is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:42 PM
  #112
OGBobbyFarnham
Registered User
 
OGBobbyFarnham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 9,097
vCash: 500
The good news is, theres still time.
No matter if Don wants a season or not, his constituents may want one at the full season cut off point. The prospect of getting $0 this year makes the "it's not about the money, it's about the principle" stance most players have erode or completely erase at that point.

Deal was done in '94 in Jan.
Season was cancelled in '05 in Feb.

OGBobbyFarnham is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:43 PM
  #113
Steve
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Can
Posts: 1,675
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
But it's NOT a battle of principle, because no actual principle is being fulfilled here unless you count being bitter and petty.

Will this deter future work stoppages? No.

Will this result in substantially better free agent rights? No.

Will this result in the maintenance of a 57% split? No.

Will it benefit the 400+ NHL'ers whose contracts end in two years? No.

What exactly does it do then?

Meanwhile you are hurting the vast majority of your constituency.

The worst thing is, I know the mentality of hockey players. We play on a team and we have each other's backs on and off the ice. How are the players going to get out of this mess? We talk about a rebellion but I think that it's not as easy as people think because of the inherent mentality of the game.

Although I agree I agree with you for the most part. The NHL has tabled their "best offer" a couple times now and they continue to move towards the players b/c they know their offers aren't beneficial in any way. They need to man up (both sides) and take one for their respective teams.

Steve is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:45 PM
  #114
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
 
MVP of West Hollywd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrNasty View Post
So according to Mackenzie...the NHL is offering the players their full salary (at 5% growth) for the next two years which is what they players wanted and will get to 50/50 in year 3 not 1...the players are now asking for a raise on top of it...and both side have agreed to 14 of the 17 contract issues...how the phuck can this deal not be made!!!!!!!
If I read Bob's calculations correctly, it would work out to something like 54% players year 1, 52% players year 2, then 50% in year 3. That's still a drop from what the players were getting last year.

MVP of West Hollywd is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:47 PM
  #115
wilty00
Registered User
 
wilty00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kelowna/Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,438
vCash: 500
The more this drags on the more I'm convinced that we're going to have a season, but it will likely start in January or whatever date the NHL deems the cutoff line for a season. The players are trying to squeeze every last drop they can out of this negotiation before a last minute resolution.

There's simply no way they can take this thing through the new year without knowing that they are going to get all their holes filled (excuse the imagery) when the new deal is eventually put into place. Fehr has done a hell of a job mobilizing them as a group, but there's got to be some human element left in the players that can recognize a bad situation when they see one.

wilty00 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:49 PM
  #116
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,095
vCash: 500
Does anyone have any clue on how much players pay for union dues. Not trying to be funny or anything, just curious.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:51 PM
  #117
Fordy
the kid signify
 
Fordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 17,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
The more this drags on the more I'm convinced that we're going to have a season, but it will likely start in January or whatever date the NHL deems the cutoff line for a season. The players are trying to squeeze every last drop they can out of this negotiation before a last minute resolution.

There's simply no way they can take this thing through the new year without knowing that they are going to get all their holes filled (excuse the imagery) when the new deal is eventually put into place. Fehr has done a hell of a job mobilizing them as a group, but there's got to be some human element left in the players that can recognize a bad situation when they see one.
Yeah, everyone seems to think this is bad news. But they keep agreeing to more and more and being offered more and more, all the main points are agreed on, it's just a matter of the PA of how much they can get. At some point the NHL will set a deadline and this will be over with quickly.

Fordy is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:52 PM
  #118
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
 
MVP of West Hollywd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CN_paladin View Post
I agree, at least the only one that makes any sense to me.

Jagr has said most players don't know the exact figures being thrown around and the leaked NHLPA memo never mentioned a single number.
I think a big reason for the players going along with this, is setting themselves up for future negotiations. Like the idea that if they gave in and accepted 50, then if they cave in as easily next time the owners will take them down to 43, then the time after that to 35, etc. Basically saying that negotiations wise they have to set a hard standard these battles, or else the owners will know they can easily run over and take advantage of the players the next CBA that expires

MVP of West Hollywd is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:55 PM
  #119
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacOfNiagara View Post
My guess is Fehr has the players believing they will get that money back.
How? Where is this money coming from, cuz the owners sure as hell aren't going to give them full pay for a shortened season.

If the players honestly think that they will get full salary + guaranteed raises (which is what the NHL keeps proposing) they're delusional.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:57 PM
  #120
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in The Flood
 
Ragamuffin Gunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 17,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mind_the_gap View Post
I don't get why the owners want to limit the '2nd year deal' and they keep mentioning Stamkos and other stars who are young..etc. Aren't they worth it? I mean all those examples are from awesome players who should be paid the big bucks..who ****ing cares how old they are. good grief.
Because it's usually the third year of an ELC where the player produced the numbers to get the big contracts.

Ragamuffin Gunner is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 07:58 PM
  #121
Fred Glover
Chief of Sinners
 
Fred Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,169
vCash: 263
Quote:
Originally Posted by stug View Post
A funny little site. This is how much the players have lost in salary.

**************************

And its ticking ^^
Love the web site.

The clock is ticking so that if my math is correct, the players are losing about $1000 every ten seconds

If that is the case,

Fred Glover is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:05 PM
  #122
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I like this post.

The part about zero rights and Fehr's comment about "everybody knows that" what he's saying is true, just over exaggerated. Running ANY business, the owner wants all the leverage - everyone does know this... it only helps the owner - makes sense. The player would have negotiating power, but substantially less. For example a team has 4M cap space available this year, but $10 over then next 5 years but now the team can only pay $4M per year (putting this 5% rule in place). Using the 5% rule, a team MUST have equal cap space available in each year of the deal, drastically limiting the amount of teams who can really negotiate on a contact. That being said, I agree with the owners here, I hate the back diving contracts. I think it's unfair, 5% may just be a little too low.

Both sides are equally guilty on those crazy long term deals. I think, however, if a team like Pitts wants to offer Crosby a 15yr $150M deal (just to exaggerate it) at $10/year. They should be able to and he should be able to accept that. I don't see why there would be an issue with the term when the deal is clearly not intended to get around any cap.
A team must have equal cap space in each year of the deal as the system stands now. The cap hit number applies to every year that the contract is in place so I don't see how that differs whether a 5% variance rule is in place or not.

I don't want a max contract length. I don't think that's necessary so I agree, if Pittsburgh wants to negotiate that kind of contract, then they should be allowed to. I'm a proponent of putting in place rules that make these long term contracts a huge liability for teams IF these contracts aren't fulfilled. I like the league's ideas of buried players counting against the cap, I like the idea of the team that signs the long term contract will have to retain a percentage of the cap hit even if they trade the player away. I like the idea of the 5% variance. Looking at how manipulated the variance is in Parise's contract, the stricter the variance, the better. Parise dropping 67% in salary one year and then another 50% the year right after - absolutely ridiculous.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:08 PM
  #123
MacOfNiagara
Blue&Gold from birth
 
MacOfNiagara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Niagara Falls
Country: United States
Posts: 2,959
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragamuffin Gunner View Post
How? Where is this money coming from, cuz the owners sure as hell aren't going to give them full pay for a shortened season.

If the players honestly think that they will get full salary + guaranteed raises (which is what the NHL keeps proposing) they're delusional.
That's my point.

I think Fehr has them believing he will negotiate back pay out of the owners pockets. I also believe there is 0% chance of that happening. But, if he has even some of them believing it, it takes pressure off Fehr.

MacOfNiagara is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:08 PM
  #124
MVP of West Hollywd
Registered User
 
MVP of West Hollywd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
The more this drags on the more I'm convinced that we're going to have a season, but it will likely start in January or whatever date the NHL deems the cutoff line for a season. The players are trying to squeeze every last drop they can out of this negotiation before a last minute resolution.

There's simply no way they can take this thing through the new year without knowing that they are going to get all their holes filled (excuse the imagery) when the new deal is eventually put into place. Fehr has done a hell of a job mobilizing them as a group, but there's got to be some human element left in the players that can recognize a bad situation when they see one.
I agree except I think the cutoff date will be whatever the deadline is for a December 1st start. PA saying no to the owners deal would be looking a gift horse in the mouth big time. December games getting cancelled and the owners pulling back the Make Whole is bad news for the players, they lose both that month of games and the Make Whole, which is a lot of coin to flush down the toilet. And it increases the likelihood the owners just saying "screw it, if we cancel the season, we can punish them in revenue sharing as much as last time"

My guess is the players haven't accepted this deal because they know they can do it a week or two from now (whenever the Dec 1st deadline is). And in that meantime they can act tough and try and push the owners into giving them more Make Whole money. IMO

MVP of West Hollywd is offline  
Old
11-11-2012, 08:12 PM
  #125
DespoticNewt
Registered User
 
DespoticNewt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,335
vCash: 50
Someone care to recap today's events for me? I know that they met, and by some talk there was another offer presented?

DespoticNewt 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 09:05 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.