HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Boston Bruins
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2012 CBA Discussion Part IV (Lockout talk here)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-25-2012, 12:29 AM
  #651
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
The only players you might lose would be a few to the KHL, and even then not likely. When the cap WAS at 39 million the NHL didn't have any more of an issue then they usually do keeping the Russians here. Ovechkin and Malkin broke into the league under such numbers.

Also, your 35 million projection is a tad low. All teams spent upwards of 49million last season on salaries, even the ones with internal caps. Set the bar at 50 million and all teams are at least capable of making it.
When it was 39 million they were getting paid 54%. If you take that % down too much, I think many top foreign players are going to stay home. You may even lose Canadian stars and some lower line players who can now get as much overseas and see increased roles. Besides that would certainly be negotiating in bad faith. The consequences would be bad if the owners tried to stay that hardline so that teams in non hockey markets could compete without revenue sharing.

And you would actually need it lower than 35 million for everyone to make money. Phoenix lost $24 million and I would assume they got close to the max revenue sharing which I think is 10 million. Phoenix could still lose money. You could do 40 million for most other teams. Quite a few would be making less than 5 million when you back out the revenue sharing. If you take out the rich teams advantage they aren't sharing revenue anymore when teams can afford themselves. The ones who benefit the most are the 12 teams that made money already.

Quote:
The NFL is able to share revenue because nearly all their revenue comes from their national broadcasting contracts. They aren't taking a ton of profit directly from the rich teams and giving it to the poor. You really need to stop touting an NFL style revenue sharing system in the NHL, this isn't the NFL. Here's an article analyzing the legitimacy of setting up a similar revenue sharing system as what the NHL employs in the NBA and MLB. When reading it you quickly realize you can also include the NHL in that group.
And who do you think drives those TV contracts? That money is actually coming directly from many of the richest teams, it just doesn't look like it. Licensing as well. Split of gate at 60/40. I'm not touting an NFL style revenue sharing system. It doesn't matter where the income comes from you can still share a similar %. The style doesn't matter. The higher you want the cap floor towards the cap the more revenue you need to share. And in the NHL which is the least popular league and forces teams into non hockey markets it should be as much as the other leagues.

Quote:
As for the rest, the NHL doesn't want to go to these models and is far from it now, They have a hard cap in place. NBA's is soft with more loopholes then Heinz has pickles, and while the NFL's is hard they don't have guaranteed contracts (which I'm sure owners would love to explore". They already have a hard cap, they just have it tied in at 57% of the revenue which right now, is too high.
Well then I think the NHL owners are not that bright. They want the best parts of other leagues CBA's but don't want the parts that actually make those leagues work better. They have continually outspent their budget, carry more debt than any other league and forced teams to spend above what they can afford with the least amount of revenue sharing by far. And I don't believe anyone is arguing to keep it at 57%. I haven't seen it. 50/50 with make whole or soft landing gives every owner the ability to make money. They can still blow it but that shouldn't mean that you just take more from the players. The owners need to take responsibility for making wise personnel and contract decisions.

Quote:
If Jacobs couldn't or the Bruins couldn't? You need to separate the two and the issue has always been that people don't. When a team like Boston doesn't spend as much as others do the billionaire owner (who made his money elsewhere) is labeled cheap and decades of failures are blamed on his unwillingness to spend as much as teams like New York. There is already a precedent established for this.
I'm not sure what you mean. I consider Jacobs & the Bruins the same. I don't expect him to put personal money in if that is what you are asking. But if the Bruins were not able to spend to the cap then no he isn't cheap. If they can afford it then they should be trying to put a Cup contender on the ice. It is better for business. That doesn't always mean that you have to spend to the cap. Spending doesn't equal winning. Ask Toronto, Columbus and Calgary among others this year.

Jacobs got blame because the Bruins were making a lot of money and when they had teams with a chance he didn't really make the go for it moves to get Bourque and Neely a cup. Of course it may not have mattered playing the Oilers. But that was also with no cap. We aren't talking about the same system at all now and Jacobs did spend in the upper half to top 10 teams most years.

Quote:
The players haven't yet made a proposal or discussed one without "make whole" have they, even in their soft landing proposals? I believe the owners came up with the idea in the original proposal and it's been carried through ever since. I honestly expect it to go away before all is said and done and an immediate drop to 50% within the first two years, it's what they want and what they haven't gotten. The closest I believe would have been the last proposal from the PA, but of course they had to practically double the "make whole" money being offered.
All of them were without make whole until the NHL came up with that concept. Now I wouldn't have accepted their first proposals either but the owners haven't tried to work off anything the players have proposed. They have basically demanded the players work off their proposal. Then when the players said 50/50 last month with make whole as the owners proposed they didn't even try to work off that. People say this latest PA offer was the first real one. I think the owners latest was also their first real one. It is the only one that wasn't trying to cut to 50/50 or less immediately. They still haven't given on any major contract issues. I really think they had a date set in mind to start in Dec or Jan and I have no idea why. Did they think the players would just cave and accept a huge rollback again?

Quote:
I also don't remember the offer from the NHL that was de-linked. I had thought every offer they'd made so far had been linked to revenue? Unless you're counting the static make whole payment in this regard, to which I would have to disagree. That doesn't make any of their offers delinked, rather it's a completely different concession the owners offered players in an effort to get the situation resolved. One likely to go away as the possibility of a season dwindles. The very fact that they offered it even up to this point actually surprises me.
Yes that is de-linked. It might be a static payment but it still doesn't link to any percentage. If revenue drops and they are guaranteeing $211 million their profits are wiped. It isn't likely just as the players de-linking is very unlikely to hurt the owners. Even based on last years revenues the first year payment above 50/50 makes it 54.5%. That is why they should have just done a soft landing which the players were looking for. I believe the players would have given up the de-linking language in that scenario.

Quote:
As for helping all players, they haven't gotten anything yet. It appears to me in the owners and PA's offers the contractual issues are fairly split. Owners insist on a 5 year contract limit to which the players countered a cap benefit recapture proposal, sounds like the players are giving on that concession. The Goepfert rule, another one most players likely don't care a lot about but that closes a loophole younger players were exploiting. The only thing you really see the players trying to take the owners to task on in their proposals seem to be the players share, the make whole sum, and revenue sharing, all with no real success so far. I'm fairly sure the owners will gladly give ground on the contractual issues but they haven't really had to yet as the PA seems to be so focused on make whole and share percentages.
Until it is over they haven't gotten anything but based on some stuff I have seen there is agreement or close on many things that help all players. I don't think the players have given on a 5 year limit yet. The cap benefit recapture is a concession but nothing major. It helps the owners which is what just about everything the players have proposed does. They are the ones giving up an enormous amount compared to the owners.

The players have had huge success so far and they are trying to keep their contracting rights. The owners have agreed to more revenue sharing. They have offered a make whole sum so there is no rollback. They made the owners come up above 50% with the make whole. That makes it a soft landing. Where the most disagreement still lies is the contract issues and of course the owners don't want de-linking in years 3 to 5. They have already de-linked in the years they most need it.

Quote:
What's the over under on the next owner proposal throwing out an even smaller amount of make whole monies in an attempt to get the players to jump before that concession is taken completely off the table?
I don't know I'm not much of a gambler. I think it would be dumb as anything more than a negotiating ploy to take it away. I also think it could blow up in their faces if they do want to play. I think they do want a season but maybe they are happy taking NBC's 200 million and damaging the game by losing another year. I think they are losing far more by not playing. They have other businesses but they aren't making up the NHL money they will lose. They can just afford it easier than some players.

Do people really think the owners have won or are winning? Everyone knew things were headed to 50/50 and the owners have now offered well over that. I don't see they have won anything. All they have done is hurt the game and cost both the owners and players a lot of money. About 300 players are actually playing and making something though. The owners aren't making any hockey related money now. They are losing much more per owner than the players are.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 07:36 AM
  #652
CosmicSpoon
Registered User
 
CosmicSpoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 53
vCash: 500
interesting note from the main board lockout thread.

Per the TSN panel, sides could be set for marathon meetings this week. Would get going mid-week, have next couple days to set something up.

Maybe a 52 or 56 game season

CosmicSpoon is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:03 AM
  #653
Dom - OHL
http://ohlwriters.co
 
Dom - OHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,953
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Dom - OHL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaider View Post
I'm thinkin yall be blowin smoke up us all wit your bettin. Yall on here all the time tellin us whats goin on an all when it looks like yall jus makin stuff up hopin we thinkin you be gettin inside stuff. You lookin more like it each day.
Ya'll got me dude. I'll now leave in shame

Dom - OHL is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:30 AM
  #654
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 34,141
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaider View Post
I'm thinkin yall be blowin smoke up us all wit your bettin. Yall on here all the time tellin us whats goin on an all when it looks like yall jus makin stuff up hopin we thinkin you be gettin inside stuff. You lookin more like it each day.


You lost as soon as you typed 'I'm thinkin.'

__________________

BOSTON STRONG !!!
Gee Wally is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:40 AM
  #655
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
Ya'll got me dude. I'll now leave in shame
wow, Quaider is my guy....do not steal him from me

btw- I know you are Joe's GM but when I come up to Canada in the Spring and we take in a few OHL games can I get advice on who to draft under the guise 'What happens in Canada, stays in Canada' (I'll pay for the beer this time)

DKH is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:49 AM
  #656
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 25,944
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegodfather View Post
I've preached the ignoring thing for years my dear but there are certain people on here I will stand up for very quickly and Dom is one of them.
Yes...I agree. Dom is one cool dude

I do think that most on this board would believe Dom over this Quaider poster.

__________________
"Good game, Good Game, I'm going to f***ing kill you, Good Game"
Ladyfan is online now  
Old
11-25-2012, 10:31 AM
  #657
8thRoundPick
Registered User
 
8thRoundPick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladyfan View Post
Yes...I agree. Dom is one cool dude

I do think that most on this board would believe Dom over this Quaider poster.
That is my opinion also.

Not that my opinion means anything at all, but I do agree with you.

8thRoundPick is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 03:22 PM
  #658
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
When it was 39 million they were getting paid 54%. If you take that % down too much, I think many top foreign players are going to stay home. You may even lose Canadian stars and some lower line players who can now get as much overseas and see increased roles. Besides that would certainly be negotiating in bad faith. The consequences would be bad if the owners tried to stay that hardline so that teams in non hockey markets could compete without revenue sharing.

And you would actually need it lower than 35 million for everyone to make money. Phoenix lost $24 million and I would assume they got close to the max revenue sharing which I think is 10 million. Phoenix could still lose money. You could do 40 million for most other teams. Quite a few would be making less than 5 million when you back out the revenue sharing. If you take out the rich teams advantage they aren't sharing revenue anymore when teams can afford themselves. The ones who benefit the most are the 12 teams that made money already.
Why back out the revenue sharing already present? Has anyone suggested doing that? Owners are willing to agree with 200 million according to their latest proposal which should be a fine number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
And who do you think drives those TV contracts? That money is actually coming directly from many of the richest teams, it just doesn't look like it. Licensing as well. Split of gate at 60/40. I'm not touting an NFL style revenue sharing system. It doesn't matter where the income comes from you can still share a similar %. The style doesn't matter. The higher you want the cap floor towards the cap the more revenue you need to share. And in the NHL which is the least popular league and forces teams into non hockey markets it should be as much as the other leagues.
Fans. How is money from the national broadcasting contract coming from the rich teams? All teams are broadcast nationally in the NFL no?

Also, the NBA only pools about $150 mill for revenue sharing. Again, the NHL is already offering to pool $200 million.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Well then I think the NHL owners are not that bright. They want the best parts of other leagues CBA's but don't want the parts that actually make those leagues work better. They have continually outspent their budget, carry more debt than any other league and forced teams to spend above what they can afford with the least amount of revenue sharing by far. And I don't believe anyone is arguing to keep it at 57%. I haven't seen it. 50/50 with make whole or soft landing gives every owner the ability to make money. They can still blow it but that shouldn't mean that you just take more from the players. The owners need to take responsibility for making wise personnel and contract decisions.
A lot of people don't apparently. Realistically however they're pretty smart, hence having the money to buy an NHL franchise. And again, you're saying owners should have refused the higher cost contracts and let their better players walk to be signed by the NYR's and Toronto's of the league. That doesn't make sense for a ton of reasons already stated throughout these threads. And they aren't getting the best parts of the other CBA's, all three are completely different. The NBA has a soft cap and a lower ceiling (12 million lower). The NFL's contracts aren't guaranteed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
I'm not sure what you mean. I consider Jacobs & the Bruins the same. I don't expect him to put personal money in if that is what you are asking. But if the Bruins were not able to spend to the cap then no he isn't cheap. If they can afford it then they should be trying to put a Cup contender on the ice. It is better for business. That doesn't always mean that you have to spend to the cap. Spending doesn't equal winning. Ask Toronto, Columbus and Calgary among others this year.

Jacobs got blame because the Bruins were making a lot of money and when they had teams with a chance he didn't really make the go for it moves to get Bourque and Neely a cup. Of course it may not have mattered playing the Oilers. But that was also with no cap. We aren't talking about the same system at all now and Jacobs did spend in the upper half to top 10 teams most years.
Jacobs did exactly what you\re suggesting here, in that he refused to give the kind of money other teams would to top end players because he thought player contracts were outrageous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
All of them were without make whole until the NHL came up with that concept. Now I wouldn't have accepted their first proposals either but the owners haven't tried to work off anything the players have proposed. They have basically demanded the players work off their proposal. Then when the players said 50/50 last month with make whole as the owners proposed they didn't even try to work off that. People say this latest PA offer was the first real one. I think the owners latest was also their first real one. It is the only one that wasn't trying to cut to 50/50 or less immediately. They still haven't given on any major contract issues. I really think they had a date set in mind to start in Dec or Jan and I have no idea why. Did they think the players would just cave and accept a huge rollback again?
Likely, especially after both the NBA and NFL PA's both agreed to go directly to 50% right away in their new CBA's. Both first offers were just that, first offers. NHL wanted to go to what, 46%? The PA wanted to lower their share right away but have it bounce back to 57% in the final year of the 3 or 4 year term (forget which).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Yes that is de-linked. It might be a static payment but it still doesn't link to any percentage. If revenue drops and they are guaranteeing $211 million their profits are wiped. It isn't likely just as the players de-linking is very unlikely to hurt the owners. Even based on last years revenues the first year payment above 50/50 makes it 54.5%. That is why they should have just done a soft landing which the players were looking for. I believe the players would have given up the de-linking language in that scenario.
So, is the players revenue in the owners proposals linked to revenue? If the answer is yes (and it is) then it isn't delinked. The players should have worked off the make whole the owners proposed originally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Until it is over they haven't gotten anything but based on some stuff I have seen there is agreement or close on many things that help all players. I don't think the players have given on a 5 year limit yet. The cap benefit recapture is a concession but nothing major. It helps the owners which is what just about everything the players have proposed does. They are the ones giving up an enormous amount compared to the owners.

The players have had huge success so far and they are trying to keep their contracting rights. The owners have agreed to more revenue sharing. They have offered a make whole sum so there is no rollback. They made the owners come up above 50% with the make whole. That makes it a soft landing. Where the most disagreement still lies is the contract issues and of course the owners don't want de-linking in years 3 to 5. They have already de-linked in the years they most need it.
They didn't give on the 5 year limit. Their answer to it was cap benefit recapture plan. It puts restrictions on owners who want to give players long contracts. That doesn't exist now, but in all honesty something like it should. A step in the right direction imo, those long front loaded contracts were complete BS.

I don't know I'm not much of a gambler. I think it would be dumb as anything more than a negotiating ploy to take it away. I also think it could blow up in their faces if they do want to play. I think they do want a season but maybe they are happy taking NBC's 200 million and damaging the game by losing another year. I think they are losing far more by not playing. They have other businesses but they aren't making up the NHL money they will lose. They can just afford it easier than some players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Do people really think the owners have won or are winning? Everyone knew things were headed to 50/50 and the owners have now offered well over that. I don't see they have won anything. All they have done is hurt the game and cost both the owners and players a lot of money. About 300 players are actually playing and making something though. The owners aren't making any hockey related money now. They are losing much more per owner than the players are.
Everyone knows it's heading to a 50/50 split, linked to revenue. Everyone except the players and Donald Fehr that is. If they were serious about getting back to the game they'd be working off that premise and trying to win their battles elsewhere. Instead they refuse to link their revenue share to the NHL's revenues. You say the NHL should just take the players version of the soft landing because it's 99% sure revenues will continue to rise.... then why delink in their proposals? Why not offer those percentages linked to revenue? Only answer I can come up with is because it doesn't guarantee them a raise year to year if revenues go down.


Last edited by Kaoz: 11-25-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 03:29 PM
  #659
cat400
Registered User
 
cat400's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ladyfan View Post
Yes...I agree. Dom is one cool dude

I do think that most on this board would believe Dom over this Quaider poster.
Totally agree.

cat400 is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 08:31 PM
  #660
sjaustin77
Registered User
 
sjaustin77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaoz View Post
Why back out the revenue sharing already present? Has anyone suggested doing that? Owners are willing to agree with 200 million according to their latest proposal which should be a fine number.
Has anyone suggested what you want to do? If you lower the cap so much to take away any advantage of rich teams they aren't going for it. If they do they would stop revenue sharing. I know I would. The NHL wants a socialist system on the players but a capitalist system among themselves. We can drop this argument because they aren't doing what you seem to want. I've been trying to keep the arguments within the systems they are working in.

There will be a cap and floor with a large difference. Poor teams will never be able to spend to the cap each year. They need to make smarter decisions on players, build through youth and then go for it for a couple years. It is the way of sports. You can not guarantee every team is competitive even if you had them spend the same amount and share all revenue.

Quote:
Fans. How is money from the national broadcasting contract coming from the rich teams? All teams are broadcast nationally in the NFL no?
And who draws the most fans? Who is on TV the most? If you were to break up the TV contract by the popularity and ratings you would see the splits. If the stations had a chance to just broadcast certain teams they would. Of course the good teams are always playing bad teams so everyone gets a chance on TV. That doesn't mean they are the featured team. And are you forgetting all local TV is split as well? 60/40 gate receipts? Licensing? The luxury tax pool that also goes to poor teams? You think all of that stuff is equal? The NFL is sharing about 80% of its revenue. If you want that % in the NHL fine with me. The NHL owners don't want it.

Quote:
Also, the NBA only pools about $150 mill for revenue sharing. Again, the NHL is already offering to pool $200 million.
I think that is wrong. I believe this is a better article explaining the NBA sharing plan. It is $140M more than they already did. And if it isn't then the NBA owners aren't very bright either. You can't make the poor teams spend that high of the cap without sharing most of your revenue. No wonder they were in worse shape than the NHL.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...A-revenue.aspx

Quote:
A lot of people don't apparently. Realistically however they're pretty smart, hence having the money to buy an NHL franchise. And again, you're saying owners should have refused the higher cost contracts and let their better players walk to be signed by the NYR's and Toronto's of the league. That doesn't make sense for a ton of reasons already stated throughout these threads. And they aren't getting the best parts of the other CBA's, all three are completely different. The NBA has a soft cap and a lower ceiling (12 million lower). The NFL's contracts aren't guaranteed.
Just because they had money doesn't mean they are all self made billionaires. And it doesn't mean they know how to run a team in a sports league. Yes owners should have refused the higher contract cost and no it doesn't mean you just let the best players leave. You let some of the overpaid role players leave. When players get too rich for you - trade them to get a return on your asset and find someone who can replace most of what they do for less money. Players are always out there. And with the cap NY and Toronto can't just take every good player.

OK, They are trying to take a lot of the good portions of other CBA's. They are picking what they like that they know has a chance of being accepted. They are leaving out the biggest factor. More revenue sharing.

Quote:
Jacobs did exactly what you\re suggesting here, in that he refused to give the kind of money other teams would to top end players because he thought player contracts were outrageous.
Are you still talking about the 90's? Jacobs has stayed away from some stupid contracts but he is spending within his teams means almost to the cap and has a very competitive team for the foreseeable future. Focus on the current systems teams are working in under the last CBA.

Quote:
Likely, especially after both the NBA and NFL PA's both agreed to go directly to 50% right away in their new CBA's. Both first offers were just that, first offers. NHL wanted to go to what, 46%? The PA wanted to lower their share right away but have it bounce back to 57% in the final year of the 3 or 4 year term (forget which).
The NBA didn't go to 50% the first year. And again just because 1 league does something doesn't mean another has to. I think NFL players get absolutely screwed. But at least they get revenue sharing right. Why should we just compare to those leagues. What about MLB with no cap. Like I said the NHL wants as many good parts of other CBA's as they can get but is leaving out the sharing part which is most important for a healthy league.

Quote:
So, is the players revenue in the owners proposals linked to revenue? If the answer is yes (and it is) then it isn't delinked. The players should have worked off the make whole the owners proposed originally.
The answer is no. They have a linked portion and an unlinked portion which can see them wipe out most of their profits if 50% is the only thing that works for them because they will be well over 50%. It is de-linked. And again why do the players have to work off the owners offer? The owners could have easily taken the players offers said lower it 1% in those first 3 years and take out de-linking. Tell them we agree to the soft landing and we have a deal.

Quote:
They didn't give on the 5 year limit. Their answer to it was cap benefit recapture plan. It puts restrictions on owners who want to give players long contracts. That doesn't exist now, but in all honesty something like it should. A step in the right direction imo, those long front loaded contracts were complete BS.
I agree about the contracts. The players addressed the problem and the owners still want 5 years. The players have made the biggest concession and made some on contracting in the latest offer. The owners don't want to move. They are blowing all their profits over about 1 million/year per team. Less if you look out 10 years. Are the players ever getting their % back up? No. So they should be projecting what this does over 10, 15 years. The owners didn't look ahead enough last time or do projections over their 5% growth and that is why we are here. They should have figured out what happens at both lower and higher growth.

Quote:
Everyone knows it's heading to a 50/50 split, linked to revenue. Everyone except the players and Donald Fehr that is. If they were serious about getting back to the game they'd be working off that premise and trying to win their battles elsewhere. Instead they refuse to link their revenue share to the NHL's revenues. You say the NHL should just take the players version of the soft landing because it's 99% sure revenues will continue to rise.... then why delink in their proposals? Why not offer those percentages linked to revenue? Only answer I can come up with is because it doesn't guarantee them a raise year to year if revenues go down.
Heading is the key word. It should have been that way - heading to a 50/50 split linked to revenue. When the owners chose not to do any soft landing and instead wanted everything immediately, they blew it. The players have agreed to get it to a 50/50 split in many ways before & now that make whole is in the equation. No it isn't linked to revenue. The owners de-linked it themselves. If the owners were serious about getting back to the game and helping the teams that need it; they would have worked with the players offers well before any games were cancelled. They would be sharing more revenue. It is called negotiating and the owners aren't interested in that. They want everything on their terms.

Frankly I don't like the players de-linking at all. I think they should give on that point. I believe revenues will go up especially years 3-5. I hate that they only want 5 years but at least it gives the owners a quick out to lockout the players again. I believe they have left it in there because the owners didn't do a soft landing. Now that make whole is in the discussion and games have been lost; here are 2 reasons the players have left in de-linking.

1. Negotiations - until the NHL shows any willingness to move on some contract issues the players will leave it in. $211 isn't make whole either. It is make partial. Pay all of make whole and maybe the players would drop it.

2. To pay for any damage that has been caused by the lockout.

I'll ask again. Under the owners current proposal what have they won? They are going to get some contract changes and that is about it. 50% was a foregone conclusion at some point and they are over 50%, and have given on a lot of smaller issues but have cost everyone a lot of money. It seems their goal the whole time was to go for a huge win, make the players cave and break the union. When that didn't happen as time came to save a full season the owners should have started actually negotiating off all proposals and not just theirs to find a solution.

sjaustin77 is offline  
Old
11-25-2012, 09:25 PM
  #661
howaryuh
Registered User
 
howaryuh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,635
vCash: 500
It was just this summer both parties expressed optimism that with the salary cap being put in place during the last set of negotiations, this one would be much easier and faster, ha!

I am getting the feeling this is a battle of egos/ideals/reputation.

If it wasn't, by now a facilitator would be called in, or perhaps they have already done that?

howaryuh is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 08:39 AM
  #662
Kaoz
Ima Krejciist.
 
Kaoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77 View Post
Has anyone suggested what you want to do? If you lower the cap so much to take away any advantage of rich teams they aren't going for it. If they do they would stop revenue sharing. I know I would. The NHL wants a socialist system on the players but a capitalist system among themselves. We can drop this argument because they aren't doing what you seem to want. I've been trying to keep the arguments within the systems they are working in.

There will be a cap and floor with a large difference. Poor teams will never be able to spend to the cap each year. They need to make smarter decisions on players, build through youth and then go for it for a couple years. It is the way of sports. You can not guarantee every team is competitive even if you had them spend the same amount and share all revenue.

And who draws the most fans? Who is on TV the most? If you were to break up the TV contract by the popularity and ratings you would see the splits. If the stations had a chance to just broadcast certain teams they would. Of course the good teams are always playing bad teams so everyone gets a chance on TV. That doesn't mean they are the featured team. And are you forgetting all local TV is split as well? 60/40 gate receipts? Licensing? The luxury tax pool that also goes to poor teams? You think all of that stuff is equal? The NFL is sharing about 80% of its revenue. If you want that % in the NHL fine with me. The NHL owners don't want it.

I think that is wrong. I believe this is a better article explaining the NBA sharing plan. It is $140M more than they already did. And if it isn't then the NBA owners aren't very bright either. You can't make the poor teams spend that high of the cap without sharing most of your revenue. No wonder they were in worse shape than the NHL.

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/J...A-revenue.aspx

Just because they had money doesn't mean they are all self made billionaires. And it doesn't mean they know how to run a team in a sports league. Yes owners should have refused the higher contract cost and no it doesn't mean you just let the best players leave. You let some of the overpaid role players leave. When players get too rich for you - trade them to get a return on your asset and find someone who can replace most of what they do for less money. Players are always out there. And with the cap NY and Toronto can't just take every good player.

OK, They are trying to take a lot of the good portions of other CBA's. They are picking what they like that they know has a chance of being accepted. They are leaving out the biggest factor. More revenue sharing.

Are you still talking about the 90's? Jacobs has stayed away from some stupid contracts but he is spending within his teams means almost to the cap and has a very competitive team for the foreseeable future. Focus on the current systems teams are working in under the last CBA.

The NBA didn't go to 50% the first year. And again just because 1 league does something doesn't mean another has to. I think NFL players get absolutely screwed. But at least they get revenue sharing right. Why should we just compare to those leagues. What about MLB with no cap. Like I said the NHL wants as many good parts of other CBA's as they can get but is leaving out the sharing part which is most important for a healthy league.

The answer is no. They have a linked portion and an unlinked portion which can see them wipe out most of their profits if 50% is the only thing that works for them because they will be well over 50%. It is de-linked. And again why do the players have to work off the owners offer? The owners could have easily taken the players offers said lower it 1% in those first 3 years and take out de-linking. Tell them we agree to the soft landing and we have a deal.

I agree about the contracts. The players addressed the problem and the owners still want 5 years. The players have made the biggest concession and made some on contracting in the latest offer. The owners don't want to move. They are blowing all their profits over about 1 million/year per team. Less if you look out 10 years. Are the players ever getting their % back up? No. So they should be projecting what this does over 10, 15 years. The owners didn't look ahead enough last time or do projections over their 5% growth and that is why we are here. They should have figured out what happens at both lower and higher growth.

Heading is the key word. It should have been that way - heading to a 50/50 split linked to revenue. When the owners chose not to do any soft landing and instead wanted everything immediately, they blew it. The players have agreed to get it to a 50/50 split in many ways before & now that make whole is in the equation. No it isn't linked to revenue. The owners de-linked it themselves. If the owners were serious about getting back to the game and helping the teams that need it; they would have worked with the players offers well before any games were cancelled. They would be sharing more revenue. It is called negotiating and the owners aren't interested in that. They want everything on their terms.

Frankly I don't like the players de-linking at all. I think they should give on that point. I believe revenues will go up especially years 3-5. I hate that they only want 5 years but at least it gives the owners a quick out to lockout the players again. I believe they have left it in there because the owners didn't do a soft landing. Now that make whole is in the discussion and games have been lost; here are 2 reasons the players have left in de-linking.

1. Negotiations - until the NHL shows any willingness to move on some contract issues the players will leave it in. $211 isn't make whole either. It is make partial. Pay all of make whole and maybe the players would drop it.

2. To pay for any damage that has been caused by the lockout.

I'll ask again. Under the owners current proposal what have they won? They are going to get some contract changes and that is about it. 50% was a foregone conclusion at some point and they are over 50%, and have given on a lot of smaller issues but have cost everyone a lot of money. It seems their goal the whole time was to go for a huge win, make the players cave and break the union. When that didn't happen as time came to save a full season the owners should have started actually negotiating off all proposals and not just theirs to find a solution.
These posts are getting too long, so I'll stop breaking up the quotes and just touch on a few of your points.

First, I'd be fine with the cap being lowered significantly. That's not realistic however and the owners offers reflect that. None that I've seen have suggested lowering the salary cap, in fact most suggest raising it to the projected 70.2 figure. NHL teams were able to spend to the cap directly after the last lockout. Yes, the cap was at 39 million when that was true however revenues have since grown, just not to the point where teams can afford to keep up with a 57% player share. That much is apparent from the amount of teams that are losing money. Now you may not believe that many teams are losing money but those are the numbers we have to work with. To be clear, I honestly don't see a system getting put in place that would see parity for all teams because the players would never agree to it as it would cut into their paychecks. I think the owners proposal of 46% for the players share of revenue is more then fair however and would likely level the playing field significantly, although it's obvious their true target is 50%.

Second, it's a pain in the ass figuring out what NBA revenue sharing now equates to because I don't believe it was ever disclosed. Some numbers have come out however, for instance the fact that 60 million was shared the year before the lockout. They were looking at nearly tripling that number, so approximately 180 million by those numbers. I've seen the 140 million number tossed around, however it was as total going to lower teams. Even by your numbers (140million + current or 60 million) it still comes out to a top end of 200million. The owners are already offering that, no? I see no issues with the owners proposed revenue sharing system. It's at the very least on par with the NBA's new CBA, if not more. And the NBA went to 51% players share in the first year so technically you're right, they didn't go right to 50%... but c'mon. Then it's a range of 49 to 51% over the remainder. So sorry, it looks to me like they went to the owners target right off the hop, no soft landing. Players offering to get to a 50/50 split in year 5 of a 5 year offer doesn't really compare, nor does going to a 50/50 split right away if owners are willing to give them 393 million spread out over years 1 to 4.

Call it linked, call it delinked. We'll just go in circles on that point. The owners aren't willing to delink the total player share number. They are willing to link the share to revenues and throw out a lump sum each year for 2 years. Personally I don't think it's something they should or need to do and think it sets a dangerous precedent, but whatever, the owners are willing to compensate the players at least somewhat for the contracts they signed under a broken system... that's more then NBA owners were willing to do for their players. They also offer a higher cap ceiling and a higher cap floor as well, again more then NBA owners did for their players even though the NBA brings in more revenue. They want max contracts such as what the NBA has in order to stop the ludicrous lengthy contracts players were getting ,yes they got them from the GM's and by extension the owners, however the players and agents were using the loophole to maximize their contract value (as any one will try and do) during the bargaining process. They also guarantee their contracts, and that's more then NFL players get from their owners. It's absolutely huge in fact, and can't be understated when you decide to try and compare the two leagues. Sorry, I know sweet crap all about baseball.

The owners have told the players were going to a linked 50/50 split immediately. The NFL and NBA set the precedent for this. They've made no bones about it. They've offered other concessions to ease the transition such as a make whole payment, that's what bargaining is after all.

And finally, just to touch on this point you made:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjaustin77
Yes owners should have refused the higher contract cost and no it doesn't mean you just let the best players leave. You let some of the overpaid role players leave. When players get too rich for you - trade them to get a return on your asset and find someone who can replace most of what they do for less money.
I thought you were trying to be realistic? How do you effectively replace what you lose with an Evgeny Malkin, Shea Weber, Zdeno Chara, or Zach Parise by trading them away just before they're about to get a huge contract? The objective of any CBA trying to maintain a competitive league should be to prevent the very situation you're describing here, where smaller market teams can no longer afford the high priced talent the larger market teams can. The NHL had that before, it lead to teams trying to create competitive teams with cheaper players and therefore not as much talent, but instead stricter systems. It was known as the dead puck era and nearly killed the sport.

Kaoz is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:25 AM
  #663
DKH
Registered User
 
DKH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 27,528
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to DKH
Just picked up McKeens and the Hockey News Year Book today to get ready for the season.

DKH is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:28 AM
  #664
Shaun
beauty
 
Shaun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Country: Italy
Posts: 21,295
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKH View Post
Just picked up McKeens and the Hockey News Year Book today to get ready for the season.
I think we are the only ones left who think there will be a season

Shaun is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:43 AM
  #665
KnightofBoston
MVP
 
KnightofBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Amherst, Ma
Country: United States
Posts: 12,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I think we are the only ones left who think there will be a season
I'm in

KnightofBoston is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:46 AM
  #666
Ladyfan
Miss you Savvy !
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: next to the bench
Country: Scotland
Posts: 25,944
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I think we are the only ones left who think there will be a season
I still have a bit of hope

Ladyfan is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 11:57 AM
  #667
bruinsfan46
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I think we are the only ones left who think there will be a season
Heart still says there will be one, brain has been saying no for a couple weeks.

bruinsfan46 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 12:17 PM
  #668
EverettMike
Registered User
 
EverettMike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Everett, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,628
vCash: 500
I can't believe I had faith that the only commissioner in major league pro sports in America to lose an entire ****ing season to a lockout could get together with the only union head to lead a strike that missed an entire ****ing post-season and avoid missed games.

If the players and owners want to get my money again they could start by firing both guys.

EverettMike is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 12:36 PM
  #669
DarrenBanks56
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossfire View Post
I think we are the only ones left who think there will be a season
i dont think the nhl or its players are stupid enough to cancel another season.
something will get done. probably this week im guessing we'll see some give on both sides.

DarrenBanks56 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:19 PM
  #670
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 34,141
vCash: 50
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenBanks56 View Post
i dont think the nhl or its players are stupid enough to cancel another season.
something will get done. probably this week im guessing we'll see some give on both sides.
I dunno. They're pretty ****ing stupid.

Gee Wally is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:32 PM
  #671
Therick67
Registered User
 
Therick67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South of Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 4,396
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
I dunno. They're pretty ****ing stupid.
Yup, nothing would surprise me with this league anymore.

Therick67 is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:39 PM
  #672
Artemis
Took the red pill
 
Artemis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mount Olympus
Country: United States
Posts: 18,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
I dunno. They're pretty ****ing stupid.
Are they stupid, or are they just not involved?


Quote:
...if the richest clubs were actually involved in negotiating these deals, we might have one by now. They’re better off with hockey than without, and aren’t pressed enough to need to scrap for each tenth of a percentage point.

Instead, those wealthiest of men (and their companies) have stuck to the sidelines, knowing the desperate others will scrape to get them the best possible deal, even though they’d be more than fine with a CBA not that dissimilar to the one the players proposed.
http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/1...-negotiations/

Artemis is online now  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:47 PM
  #673
Gee Wally
Retired
 
Gee Wally's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: HF retirement home
Country: United States
Posts: 34,141
vCash: 50
Awards:
I believe they are involved.
I also believe that once the players brought Fehr in this became a good old fashioned mines bigger than yours pissin' match.

That to me is kinda stupid. But thats where we are at.

So much so I think the league will give up the season rather than give Fehr anything of substance.

So only way to have a seasdon this year is for the players to hurt enough to tell Fehr flat out -'settle'.

Gee Wally is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 01:56 PM
  #674
mikelvl
Registered User
 
mikelvl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,828
vCash: 487
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gee Wally View Post
I believe they are involved.
I also believe that once the players brought Fehr in this became a good old fashioned mines bigger than yours pissin' match.

That to me is kinda stupid. But thats where we are at.

So much so I think the league will give up the season rather than give Fehr anything of substance.

So only way to have a seasdon this year is for the players to hurt enough to tell Fehr flat out -'settle'.
This sums it up. I have little to no confidence in the brilliant minds that have brought hockey to this stage. If anything, I'd be shocked if they did reach an agreement in the near future. Too many idiots involved at this point. There is no Bob Kraft apparently.

mikelvl is offline  
Old
11-26-2012, 02:19 PM
  #675
Lost Horizons
Everybody Wants Some
 
Lost Horizons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Everywhere
Country: United States
Posts: 8,088
vCash: 500
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie

Quote:
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie

NHL and NHLPA have agreed to allow U.S. federal mediators to get involved in the labor dispute.

Deputy Director Scot L. Beckenbaugh, Director of Mediation Services John Sweeney, and Commissioner Guy Serota to serve as the mediators.

Mediators work under umbrella of Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Let's see if some "outside" perspective makes a difference.

Mediation is not binding. It's just an objective third party trying to help process get on track. Mediators were, IIRC, used in 2004-05.

Lost Horizons 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 08:41 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.