HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-20-2012, 06:54 PM
  #376
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
A must read...

http://m.thestar.com/sports/leafs/ar...osal-wednesday



Much more detail and tidbits in it..
Fantastic article. Puts things in perspective, if accurate.

With this info, can anyone tell me why we can't have hockey right now?

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 06:55 PM
  #377
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
When you or any one else constantly refer to billionaire owners who should be able to afford blah blah blah, you are talking about money earned outside of hockey. No owner became a billionaire from hockey. And it's referred to here as mutual. It's not.

Hockey teams ( all 30 of them - not the league as a whole) have to be able to sustain themselves.

Again, the franchise value IMO means diddly squat. The owners don't make a penny off franchise values until they sell and can get that franchise value.

You and I agree on a lot of things, but we'll continue to disagree on this.
Do you dislike the players' offers and if so, why?

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:12 PM
  #378
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 20,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
A must read...

http://m.thestar.com/sports/leafs/ar...osal-wednesday



Much more detail and tidbits in it..
So if re-entry waivers are gone couldn't Seguin go play in the AHL if he chose to?

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:15 PM
  #379
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Peoria, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
When you or any one else constantly refer to billionaire owners who should be able to afford blah blah blah, you are talking about money earned outside of hockey. No owner became a billionaire from hockey. And it's referred to here as mutual. It's not.

Hockey teams ( all 30 of them - not the league as a whole) have to be able to sustain themselves.

Again, the franchise value IMO means diddly squat. The owners don't make a penny off franchise values until they sell and can get that franchise value.

You and I agree on a lot of things, but we'll continue to disagree on this.
Well, some earned their money from their parents not always on their own. I've never said they earned it on hockey.

I've showed how each one can profit off the players offer. And I disagree they have to sustain themselves. There are too many market indifferences to force teams to spend a certain amount. To have competitiveness and profits they need help from each owner unless you just want to contract a lot of teams. That doesn't benefit the rich either. They will make more by revenue sharing than by contracting, by expanding into other markets and growing the game.

NFL works because it is more popular right? Wrong - it works because of revenue sharing. Look at the difference in operating income in the Cowboys and the lower teams. The NFL,MLB & NBA would have lots of teams not survive either. Sports need a huge amount of revenue sharing or the leagues will look far different. The NHL shares so little of their revenues compared to the other leagues.

I can't believe someone as smart as you (and I know you are smart because you agree with me on a lot) can say Franchise value doesn't mean squat. I know it is a paper value until they sell but if it wasn't for franchise value we would barely have sports leagues. There certainly wouldn't be the number of teams or the profits that they generate.

Owners are in it for the franchise value and related businesses more than the operating income IMO and I think is well backed up. Leipold for example. Jacobs only making a little per year on operating income. You think Jacobs would be in this business if it was about operating income?

We will have to disagree on that. It is a main principle of business, real estate etc. The end game isn't just the operating income.

Bottom line - When do you think we see hockey? I say early to mid December.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 07:51 PM
  #380
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Thank you! That's what I've been looking for.

To all the people complaining about how the players have been negotiating: Tell me where the flaws lie in these proposals (specifically the third, which I see as being the strongest).

What concerns me is the unknown... What have the players asked for in return for a smaller cut?
Because many teams in the NHL already aren't turning a profit and that proposal see's the players share increase every single year, from 1.88 billion now to 2.145 billion in 2016-2017. It assumes a rate of growth in revenues that may or may not be realistic, and really does nothing to alleviate the issues currently plaguing bottom tier teams

Revenue sharing is the players solution, which is easy for them to suggest because it involves them losing no money. Forget for one second that you're telling the group that just paid 1.32 billion for a franchise that you need to drastically cut into their profits in order to prop up teams worth a 20th of the value so they can spend 70 million each year on their players as well. Essentially what you have are the owners telling the players "as it stands right now this business isn't profitable and in order to fix that and make it profitable for all teams we need to lower salaries to a more reasonable level". Then you have players saying "No, we want the teams actually making money (who just so happen to be the same teams who gouge their fans at the gates) to share their profits instead because we like making lots and lots of money". This is the idea some fans support? Then you have guys like Shea Weber signing an offer sheet for a sum that would likely be able to buy him the Nashville Predators franchise come the end of the contract. Not hard to see why owners have an issue. Matt Stajan made more money then 20 some NHL franchises last year.

Kaoz is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 08:47 PM
  #381
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Because many teams in the NHL already aren't turning a profit and that proposal see's the players share increase every single year, from 1.88 billion now to 2.145 billion in 2016-2017. It assumes a rate of growth in revenues that may or may not be realistic, and really does nothing to alleviate the issues currently plaguing bottom tier teams
Look at those proposals again.

The players' share goes DOWN every season. The numbers you're quoting are based on the assumption that revenues will increase from season-to-season... Which is a fair assumption, no? Even the league's proposal isn't a request for a standard dollar amount to the players. It's a share as well, that would increase with league revenues JUST like the PA proposal.

If it's not aggressive enough for you (which may be fair), then why? What about the numbers don't work?

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:26 PM
  #382
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Look at those proposals again.

The players' share goes DOWN every season. The numbers you're quoting are based on the assumption that revenues will increase from season-to-season... Which is a fair assumption, no? Even the league's proposal isn't a request for a standard dollar amount to the players. It's a share as well, that would increase with league revenues JUST like the PA proposal.

If it's not aggressive enough for you (which may be fair), then why? What about the numbers don't work?
I wonder if the owners are worried that other costs might go up or stay constant and maybe revenues wont grow...

Locking in fot 10 years to a deal that barely bare minimumm is good enough might seem like bad business. specially if the players arent even offering 50 50.

Remember their best proposal so far says they want all promised money and want the extra out of the owners share. even at 50 50 the owners will only get around an exta 200 million at current revenue per season. if for some reason revue dropped 400 mill then this windfall would evaporate

Players would still split 1.9 bill even with a 400 million loss of rev

A 50/50 split will help owners alot but it wont make them filthy rich. it might not even get them out ofred. meanwhile a 50/50 split still gives the players over2 mill Average salary... But again a true 50/50 hasnt been offered yet by the players

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:30 PM
  #383
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alberta_OReilly_Fan View Post
I wonder if the owners are worried that other costs might go up or stay constant and maybe revenues wont grow...

Locking in fot 10 years to a deal that barely bare minimumm is good enough might seem like bad business. specially if the players arent even offering 50 50.

Remember their best proposal so far says they want all promised money and want the extra out of the owners share. even at 50 50 the owners will only get around an exta 200 million at current revenue per season. if for some reason revue dropped 400 mill then this windfall would evaporate

Players would still split 1.9 bill even with a 400 million loss of rev

A 50/50 split will help owners alot but it wont make them filthy rich. it might not even get them out ofred. meanwhile a 50/50 split still gives the players over2 mill Average salary... But again a true 50/50 hasnt been offered yet by the players
So you would propose no "make whole"? Using this rationale, of course.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:32 PM
  #384
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 18,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patty59 View Post
You're right, nothing else really compares. So, what are the revenue splits in the other sports?
We've done this.

The NHL only really matches up with the NFL, with a hard cap, meaning there needs to be a clearly defined split that sets the cap, both the cap and the floor.

Individual players in the NFL do not have an individual cap on them like the NHL.

By the way, this is the least interesting debate on here, since I haven't seen anyone argue for the player's to get more than 50/50.

The NHLPA has also agreed about getting it to a 50/50 split.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-20-2012, 09:44 PM
  #385
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,909
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EverettMike View Post
We've done this.

The NHL only really matches up with the NFL, with a hard cap, meaning there needs to be a clearly defined split that sets the cap, both the cap and the floor.

Individual players in the NFL do not have an individual cap on them like the NHL.

By the way, this is the least interesting debate on here, since I haven't seen anyone argue for the player's to get more than 50/50.

The NHLPA has also agreed about getting it to a 50/50 split.
I've proposed a 52/48 split in favor of the players with no "make whole" and the savings allocated directly to revenue-share. I've shown how you can give every franchise $10M to START with a program that doesn't just milk from the "rich" few teams. It takes almost every team from losing money to making money - and from breaking even, to making good money.

It was also a proposal that brought the two sides closer together in the decision-making process, in an effort to ensure that future negotiations can take place without the animosity that we're used to.

It's possible. In fact, it's almost simple.

Mr. Make-Believe is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 01:31 AM
  #386
Alberta_OReilly_Fan
Bruin fan since 1975
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Edmonton Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,434
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
So you would propose no "make whole"? Using this rationale, of course.
my proposals dont matter anymore and i hope the league/players can figure one out between themselves that will work.

but what im saying is that some people believe the union has accepted a 50/50 but the deal the unione proposed was 50/50 and then on top of that... extra. the extra they are asking for is significant.

i guess the owners are willing to do a 50/50 with a make whole... which is also extra. its not as much extra as the players want though.

so it seems both sides are willing to not do 50/50 right away. who am i to say that they need to?

if i was going to do a proposal myself... im probably say they should do 45/45 and take 10% to put into a fund that can liberate taxpayers out of situations where we are currently being held hostage. But my proposal would never ever ever be acceptable to either side.

The make whole... seams too confusing. if the owners are willing to do a make whole, they should just make it was simpler. But i find the unions logic on the make whole to be baffling. their complaint is that they worry that their money will come from their side of the 50-50 split? whats wrong with this if they are right?

i mean they are worried that current players get the current money negotiated... but if they can get it from a 50-50 split then why not? why must this money come from the owners? I dont get it. I realize they fear that there wont be enough money... but if there is... why cant it all come from their side of the equation?

and if there isnt enough money... then that was always a possibility anyhow. The individual contracts are always subject to escrow if revenues dont meet predicted projections. I dont really get the whole make whole thing... but the owners are on board with it so i dont personally care.

i just want a deal. I try to understand the owners pov. they are the ones driving the agenda now. i think their motives seem understandable to me. alot of other posters here seem to say they dont understand the owners. i am guessing though they want to understand so ive taken a stab at trying to explain the owners position. The owners themselves dont seem to care about PR or rather the league doesnt. The owners are under a gag order.

The players position is easy to understand too. They want whatever they can get. Why not? You and i would too. They cant be faulted for wanting it... the only fault is if they are asking for more then is available. From where i read the tea leaves... thats the case. I dont think the owners are willing to give what the players ask for. I think the owners would rather lose the season then give what the players ask for. I wonder if the players understand this? I wonder if the players would rather lose the season then to accept what the owners are offering? I worry that the players dont understand the owners position here... and maybe are thinking the owners are bluffing? I hope not.

on a scary side note... was listening to oilers lunch today. The host Bob Staffer passed on a rumor he heard that Fehr has a clause in his contract that pays him 10 mill if the union signs off on an offer that Fehr doesnt approve. The ramifications of this is... Fehr might be intentionally forcing a situation to get this payday???? Now Staffer reported this as an unsubtantuated rumor that was interesting to him. He normally seems like the type of host that tries to protect his credibility. I doubt hed recycle this rumor if it didnt have some legs... but it was just a rumor so far.

if its true... then im not sure id trust Fehr at all. we already know hes not sticking around after this deal. So what does he have to lose if he refuses to accept a deal for the players? He gets his 10 mill and whatever deal gets signed doesnt end up on his legacy anyhow. Its scary if theres any truth to this at all

Alberta_OReilly_Fan is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 06:57 AM
  #387
Morris Wanchuk
.......
 
Morris Wanchuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: War Memorial Arena
Country: United States
Posts: 14,741
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Morris Wanchuk
IMO, it all comes down to if the NHLPA will agree to a LINKED deal in the first few years.


All of their "proposals" have been for an arbitrary number, delinked from revenues. The ironic thing is that they did this in the last negotiation and had the owners accepted, the salary cap would have been a stagnant 49mil.

Yes, there are some inherent risks in linkage when it comes to a decline in revenues, but I just do not see that happening. You have hockey crazy Canada, large markets with good teams, generational talents in good markets, etc.

Morris Wanchuk is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 07:44 AM
  #388
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Do you dislike the players' offers and if so, why?
No I actually like the players offer...if it was made back in October and would have saved the season. I don't like it now and here's why:

The NHLPA has yet to make a complete proposal, but I am told one is coming around 11 am this morning. The NHL has made three. And by complete, I mean complete so each side knows what they are giving up from top to bottom on every issue not just a few - which is what the NHLPA proposals deal with - a few items at a time. To complicated to get into here but as an example: We'll agree to 50/50 split but here's what we want on pension, health care and so on. You can't determine a total cost on the NHLPA offers because they don't tell what they are asking on other items. The NHL offers do that.

The players offer on which they propose a 1,75 % increase that will eventually lead to a 48% share for players was a perfect offer, back in October. here's the problem I have with it:

The NHLPA's question is who pays for the lockout. They aren't asking who's paying the people let out of work in arena's restaurants, bars, cab drivers, officials, scorekeepers, etc. They are asking "who pays the players?" Their increase is based on what the players would have earned in full had there been no lockout. IN FULL. No matter what the revenue is this year.

And for each and every subsequent year up until year 5 they are adding 1.75% to what they would have recieved this year regardless of what the revenue is. So what if revenue drops? How many people here have said they'll never return, never watch another game, never buy another jersey?

It's now based on a hypothetical because we don't know how revenues are going to go but yet they want not only a guarantee of what they would have earned, but an increase to it.

It was the perfect offer, if it came before October 1. And honestly, I believe one the owners would have accepted.

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:21 AM
  #389
BMC
#BostonStrong
 
BMC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Northeastern CT
Country: United States
Posts: 19,463
vCash: 500
My .02 on the "make whole" nonsense- nothing. Not a penny. Why? Because IMO the NHLPA is as just as responsible for this lockout as the owners are due to their refusal to negotiate a new CBA before the old one expired.

BMC is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:33 AM
  #390
patty59
***************
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Look at those proposals again.

The players' share goes DOWN every season. The numbers you're quoting are based on the assumption that revenues will increase from season-to-season... Which is a fair assumption, no? Even the league's proposal isn't a request for a standard dollar amount to the players. It's a share as well, that would increase with league revenues JUST like the PA proposal.

If it's not aggressive enough for you (which may be fair), then why? What about the numbers don't work?
Not sure about that, their share in real dollars goes up every year, but their share goes down percentage wise based on projected numbers.

While it might look good on paper, the fact is, you can't count on revenues to increase in the first couple years considering they stand to lose close to half this one. So in year 2 of the deal the players percentage of revenues will be quite a bit higher than the previous 57%.

I'd like to see them just freeze the cap at 69-70M until that number represents a 50-50 split.

patty59 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:54 AM
  #391
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMC View Post
My .02 on the "make whole" nonsense- nothing. Not a penny. Why? Because IMO the NHLPA is as just as responsible for this lockout as the owners are due to their refusal to negotiate a new CBA before the old one expired.
So everything the owners did was not in good faith.. that sounds great. I think the PA besides wanting to get into a pissing contest with the owners just plain doesn't trust them or have any respect for them because they knowingly signed players to deals that they were never gonna pay.

BlackNgold 84 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 08:57 AM
  #392
ranold26
Get off my rink!
 
ranold26's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,144
vCash: 500
When there is a CBA deal, when Bettman and Fehr shake hands and thank the fans at a presser, I wish the media would punch them in the face on behalf of the fans.

ranold26 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:05 AM
  #393
bp13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMC View Post
My .02 on the "make whole" nonsense- nothing. Not a penny. Why? Because IMO the NHLPA is as just as responsible for this lockout as the owners are due to their refusal to negotiate a new CBA before the old one expired.
Counters:

1. Why negotiate the next deal when you love the current one?
2. The 'make whole' regards paying for contracts agreed upon during the last CBA, and specifically, making whole for the dollars agreed upon when the HRR %'s shift in the next CBA. It's not specifically about how to handle the lost games of this season. So I'm not sure why you're conflating the two?
3. If having a deal is a priority, then the owners are just as at fault for not agreeing to play under the old CBA, as proposed by the Union, as the Union is for not negotiating during the old one. I think most agree that either side would have been dumb to take either action.

bp13 is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:12 AM
  #394
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Make-Believe View Post
Look at those proposals again.

The players' share goes DOWN every season. The numbers you're quoting are based on the assumption that revenues will increase from season-to-season... Which is a fair assumption, no? Even the league's proposal isn't a request for a standard dollar amount to the players. It's a share as well, that would increase with league revenues JUST like the PA proposal.

If it's not aggressive enough for you (which may be fair), then why? What about the numbers don't work?
I don't believe so MMB. I believe the monies allocated to players salaries increases every year by 1.75%, however if revenue increases at the rate suggested it would mean that their percentage of revenue would actually decrease. They want their 1.88 billion with a 1.75% increase each season regardless of what revenue does.

Mirtle looks a bit more closely at that very proposal right here and talks about just that issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5483375/

Again, the players want their money. They're creatively trying to find a way to make the financials work so that teams aren't losing so much money without cutting player salaries, and in fact increasing player salaries. As Dom mentions they want the owners to foot the bill for the lockout, meaning even more money out of pocket for them with teams already bleeding money.

So players want to increase revenue sharing, but the teams actually making money as few as they are don't want to. Can't really blame a franchise like Toronto for not wanting to have their profits cut into even more considering Rogers/Bell dropped 1.32 billion on the company (yes that included the Raptors, Marlies, and Toronto FC as well). Of course they aren't going to want to pay money to a team like Nashville so that they can go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money on a guy like Shea Weber (what is it, 40 million in the first two years) or so that Carolina can sign Jordan Staal to a 60 million dollar contract.

Other then the teams making actual money not wanting to increase revenue sharing, even if you still managed to convince them too that might help the teams that are losing money now make a small profit, but in many cases that doesn't allow them to spend to the Cap ceiling and still be profitable. They'd be turning a small profit yes (again, guys like Johnny Boychuk would turn a larger profit every season then many teams), but they still wouldn't be able to be competitive salary wise. Look at the teams losing money, look at how close to the cap floor most of those teams play it. Do you want an NHL where certain teams can be taken advantage of because they need to operate with an internal cap limit because the ceiling is too high for them to realistically reach? I don't for reasons stated previously, mainly, it doesn't make for a 30 team competitive league.

Kaoz is online now  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:27 AM
  #395
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,469
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Counters:

1. Why negotiate the next deal when you love the current one?
2. The 'make whole' regards paying for contracts agreed upon during the last CBA, and specifically, making whole for the dollars agreed upon when the HRR %'s shift in the next CBA. It's not specifically about how to handle the lost games of this season. So I'm not sure why you're conflating the two?
3. If having a deal is a priority, then the owners are just as at fault for not agreeing to play under the old CBA, as proposed by the Union, as the Union is for not negotiating during the old one. I think most agree that either side would have been dumb to take either action.
The difference? 11 Months ago vs 3 months ago.

From the NHLPA to the Canadian Parliament in a letter to MP's

Quote:
Negotiations could have continued while games were played. It did not have to come to this."
Why is it that they are the only one who continue to bring the no-negotiating up? Why do they never mention that they refused to negotiate 11 months ago? Tell me, when was the last time you heard the NHL make that complaint?

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:32 AM
  #396
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 20,633
vCash: 500
The nWo is making their entrance


Shaun is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:37 AM
  #397
Shaun
Registered User
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 20,633
vCash: 500
Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl
In NYC for #CBA meetings. Early indication,NHLPA has made a significant move in the direction of the owners. #TSN

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
PA moves off its position on guaranteed players share dollars + shifts more to the owners demand of a percentage base in the revenue split.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
We're also hearing the NHLPA proposal will work off a percentage of HRR -- as requested by NHL -- and not a guaranteed dollar amount.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
But what those percentages are, and whether the $180M increase in Make Whole acts as a guarantee of sorts, remains to be seen.

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:38 AM
  #398
Kate08
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Kate08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Medford MA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Counters:

1. Why negotiate the next deal when you love the current one?
2. The 'make whole' regards paying for contracts agreed upon during the last CBA, and specifically, making whole for the dollars agreed upon when the HRR %'s shift in the next CBA. It's not specifically about how to handle the lost games of this season. So I'm not sure why you're conflating the two?
3. If having a deal is a priority, then the owners are just as at fault for not agreeing to play under the old CBA, as proposed by the Union, as the Union is for not negotiating during the old one. I think most agree that either side would have been dumb to take either action.
I don't fully understand the make whole piece and haven't formed my opinion on it, but I do have an opinion on your first and last bullets.

You negotiate the next deal when you love the current one because you know the current one is ending. It's guaranteed, and you're going to have to negotiate it at some point. Why not start early, to try and avoid the cluster**** we're in now?

Why should the owners agree to extend the old deal? All that does is push out the deadline, and most likely interrupt the season when it's already in progress. Let's say the owners agreed to start the season under the old CBA and set a Thanksgiving deadline for a new one. The players already said the didn't want to negotiate while the season was happening (which is complete ********), so why would that stance have changed? We would have had 2 months of a season, and then be dealing with this lockout -- which would have been completely infuriating.

Kate08 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:47 AM
  #399
Salem13
Registered User
 
Salem13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem,Mass
Country: United States
Posts: 2,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bp13 View Post
Counters:

1. Why negotiate the next deal when you love the current one?

3. If having a deal is a priority, then the owners are just as at fault for not agreeing to play under the old CBA, as proposed by the Union, as the Union is for not negotiating during the old one. I think most agree that either side would have been dumb to take either action.
A1 The deal was expiring.

A2 ----

A3 playing under the old CBA would have given the NHLPA all the power and per Fehr's typical actions would have had their own strike in mid April

Salem13 is offline  
Old
11-21-2012, 09:59 AM
  #400
BlackNgold 84
Registered User
 
BlackNgold 84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
I don't believe so MMB. I believe the monies allocated to players salaries increases every year by 1.75%, however if revenue increases at the rate suggested it would mean that their percentage of revenue would actually decrease. They want their 1.88 billion with a 1.75% increase each season regardless of what revenue does.

Mirtle looks a bit more closely at that very proposal right here and talks about just that issue:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...rticle5483375/

Again, the players want their money. They're creatively trying to find a way to make the financials work so that teams aren't losing so much money without cutting player salaries, and in fact increasing player salaries. As Dom mentions they want the owners to foot the bill for the lockout, meaning even more money out of pocket for them with teams already bleeding money.

So players want to increase revenue sharing, but the teams actually making money as few as they are don't want to. Can't really blame a franchise like Toronto for not wanting to have their profits cut into even more considering Rogers/Bell dropped 1.32 billion on the company (yes that included the Raptors, Marlies, and Toronto FC as well). Of course they aren't going to want to pay money to a team like Nashville so that they can go out and spend ridiculous amounts of money on a guy like Shea Weber (what is it, 40 million in the first two years) or so that Carolina can sign Jordan Staal to a 60 million dollar contract.

Other then the teams making actual money not wanting to increase revenue sharing, even if you still managed to convince them too that might help the teams that are losing money now make a small profit, but in many cases that doesn't allow them to spend to the Cap ceiling and still be profitable. They'd be turning a small profit yes (again, guys like Johnny Boychuk would turn a larger profit every season then many teams), but they still wouldn't be able to be competitive salary wise. Look at the teams losing money, look at how close to the cap floor most of those teams play it. Do you want an NHL where certain teams can be taken advantage of because they need to operate with an internal cap limit because the ceiling is too high for them to realistically reach? I don't for reasons stated previously, mainly, it doesn't make for a 30 team competitive league.
Typical. So the players should have to make concessions because the owners don't want to do more revenue sharing? That is a owners issue.. not a players. This is why i wish there weren't so many jobs on the line. The teams that don't make money would either fade away because god forbid teams like toronto, boston, and other teams make good money and have to spread it around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate08 View Post
I don't fully understand the make whole piece and haven't formed my opinion on it, but I do have an opinion on your first and last bullets.

You negotiate the next deal when you love the current one because you know the current one is ending. It's guaranteed, and you're going to have to negotiate it at some point. Why not start early, to try and avoid the cluster**** we're in now?

Why should the owners agree to extend the old deal? All that does is push out the deadline, and most likely interrupt the season when it's already in progress. Let's say the owners agreed to start the season under the old CBA and set a Thanksgiving deadline for a new one. The players already said the didn't want to negotiate while the season was happening (which is complete ********), so why would that stance have changed? We would have had 2 months of a season, and then be dealing with this lockout -- which would have been completely infuriating.
I don't get why the players have to or should negotiate during the season. I don't want any player on my team or several not paying attention their job to get into a pissing contest during the season. People act like this **** wouldn't be happening if they negotiated during the season. The egos would still be there and it would stretched for a longer period of time.

BlackNgold 84 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 08:50 AM.

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.