HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, and NHL revenues.

What's your status with the latest NHLPA proposal?

View Poll Results: I still believe the NHL are in the right after the latest NHLPA proposal.
Yes, I side with the owners. 89 58.55%
No, the NHLPA appears to be trying harder. 15 9.87%
No and never did believe Bettman and the owners. I don't trust them. 48 31.58%
Voters: 152. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-22-2012, 10:07 AM
  #26
Ari91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,443
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Now, I could be wrong, but I do not believe the upper limit cap really affects the split of revenue. Having it at the guaranteed minimum f $67.5 million just means that if revenues aren't high enough to support it, that players will lose a bunch of money to escrow. Seems like a transitional rule to me, to make it so teams don't have to go dumping players to get under the cap. Instead, they'll just let escrow take care of it. And this is similar to how the NHL handled the transition (at least in earlier proposals) no? Just keep the high salary cap and let escrow take the money away.
That's how I understand it as well. They'll get hit with escrow if revenues don't technically work out to that number.

Ari91 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:26 AM
  #27
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,332
vCash: 500
I don't like any of those options. I still side with the players. NHL is asking for too much too soon IMHO. They have a right to. But this is what they can expect to face by doing so. I don't think that fits with "NHLPA is trying harder" though.

Blind Gardien is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:41 AM
  #28
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 66,979
vCash: 50
I'm glad that the NHLPA is starting to offer a reasonable solution but I can't blame the NHL for rejecting it.

Shrimper is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:14 PM
  #29
Cap'n Flavour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Romania
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Cap'n Flavour Send a message via MSN to Cap'n Flavour
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
I'm glad that the NHLPA is starting to offer a reasonable solution but I can't blame the NHL for rejecting it.
Why not?

I mean the obvious answer is because the owners will have an easier time waiting it out. The question is why a majority of people on these forums support the owners' decision to play hardball to maximize concessions from the players. I suppose it's just another reflection of ignorant anti-union and anti-labour sentiment since it somehow always seems to be the NHLPA's fault for being locked out every 10 years or less.

Cap'n Flavour is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:25 PM
  #30
DL44
Registered User
 
DL44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 5,303
vCash: 133
Whats there to be right or wrong about...

Owners are hardlining the economic structure and want at the contractual rights...
Players are hardlining their contracting rights and want at some more make whole money...

Both are... right? selfish? greedy? looking out for their best interests?

End of the day they are close... and there SHOULD be a season... just have to detach emotionally and let it happen when it happens...

Then go crazy again if the season is cancelled. Meanwhile.. enjoy the soap opera.

DL44 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:34 PM
  #31
MoreOrr
B4
 
MoreOrr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mexico
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,537
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
I'm glad that the NHLPA is starting to offer a reasonable solution but I can't blame the NHL for rejecting it.
This would be my perspective.

I think that it should've been expected that Bettman would reject this offer. It would be obvious that it wouldn't include all that the owners will want; but what Bettman and the owners asked for here was a comprehensive proposal from the players, something that Bettman could take back to the owners and together they can mull it over and see where they can reach out to the players on certain points. I don't necessarily see this as a negative, but something to be expected in what could ultimately be a strong step towards a positive outcome. Let's now see what the owners proposal response is to this latest more comprehensive proposal from the players. The gap between the sides is getting smaller.


Last edited by MoreOrr: 11-22-2012 at 01:50 PM.
MoreOrr is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 01:47 PM
  #32
Diamondillium
DO YOU WANT ANTS!?
 
Diamondillium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,359
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
So you want the players to take whatever deal puts the game back on the ice?
(Not who you asked, but I'll answer)

Yes, I do. I have no relations to any players or owners. I want the players to take a 0% share if it gets me hockey. Sounds inconsiderate, but hell, I do not know these people nor do I care about them. That being said, I am not pro-owner persay. If the owners accepted an offer that was 100% players, I would again be happy. I don't care what the deal is, as long as there is one.

EDIT: To make this more clear, I'm not saying I hate both sides for not intentionally screwing themselves over to get hockey back. I completely understand why they are not doing what I suggest. I'm just saying I personally would definitely have no problem with one side getting completely screwed over if it benefited me.


Last edited by Diamondillium: 11-22-2012 at 01:53 PM.
Diamondillium is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 03:47 PM
  #33
Falconone
Registered User
 
Falconone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Suburb of Boston MA
Country: United States
Posts: 183
vCash: 500
Intersting perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondillium View Post
(Not who you asked, but I'll answer)

Yes, I do. I have no relations to any players or owners. I want the players to take a 0% share if it gets me hockey. Sounds inconsiderate, but hell, I do not know these people nor do I care about them. That being said, I am not pro-owner persay. If the owners accepted an offer that was 100% players, I would again be happy. I don't care what the deal is, as long as there is one.

EDIT: To make this more clear, I'm not saying I hate both sides for not intentionally screwing themselves over to get hockey back. I completely understand why they are not doing what I suggest. I'm just saying I personally would definitely have no problem with one side getting completely screwed over if it benefited me.
This is an intersting perspective, let me offer words attributed Pastor Martin Niemolleron reflecting on the rise of Nazi Germany :

First they came for the Communists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


F1

Falconone is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 03:55 PM
  #34
Defender1970
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
I just listened to an interview where screwball... er.. Bettman mentioned that the NHL is losing between 18-20 mil per day and the players are losing between 8-10 mil per day. Seems to me that the owners are the ones here who should be worried.

And I still say that ever since I read the arbitration that the league published publicly, they are completely in the wrong. Let me explain... Firstly, the league is trying to slash the split money between the league and players giving the players a raw deal. Not only that, but they are also trying to chop the salary cap $10M. That's just freakin wrong. That's wrong is anyone's book.

Defender1970 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 04:00 PM
  #35
MikeK
Registered User
 
MikeK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,656
vCash: 8000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender1970 View Post
I just listened to an interview where screwball... er.. Bettman mentioned that the NHL is losing between 18-20 mil per day and the players are losing between 8-10 mil per day. Seems to me that the owners are the ones here who should be worried.

And I still say that ever since I read the arbitration that the league published publicly, they are completely in the wrong. Let me explain... Firstly, the league is trying to slash the split money between the league and players giving the players a raw deal. Not only that, but they are also trying to chop the salary cap $10M. That's just freakin wrong. That's wrong is anyone's book.
Not in my book. It only seems wrong if you don't understand finances.

MikeK is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 05:00 PM
  #36
FuriousSenator
Registered User
 
FuriousSenator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,019
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
Why not?

I mean the obvious answer is because the owners will have an easier time waiting it out. The question is why a majority of people on these forums support the owners' decision to play hardball to maximize concessions from the players. I suppose it's just another reflection of ignorant anti-union and anti-labour sentiment since it somehow always seems to be the NHLPA's fault for being locked out every 10 years or less.
Or we recognize the ignorance and hubris of a bunch of players demanding they get more than half of league revenues.

FuriousSenator is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 05:18 PM
  #37
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Does anybody still believe the owners after the players went with a direct percentage and it was still rejected? The PA had a clause in there that revenue one year cannot be less than that of the previous year; but considering how the NHL added the rollback to the salary cap last CBA, they had to have a nugget in there for protection. Their premise, however, is now direct linkage and speaking the language of the NHL.

The NHL still rejected the NHLPA's proposal after 50 minutes. Does anybody still trust the owners?
The players didn't offer a direct percentage. They said they will only take 50/50 in the event revenues never drop.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 05:48 PM
  #38
therealdeal
Registered User
 
therealdeal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconone View Post
This is an intersting perspective, let me offer words attributed Pastor Martin Niemolleron reflecting on the rise of Nazi Germany :

First they came for the Communists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


F1


Ha, what a useless quote in this situation. If you went out and found some marxists quotes that's one thing. This is a labor dispute, which could be argued as class warfare. Its not a marginalization of a people or group, nor are any of those people in danger of being rounded up and murdered.

Really, really inappropriate thing to say in my opinion. Clearly the scope and the framing of this issue has gotten completely out of control for many people.

therealdeal is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:00 PM
  #39
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defender1970 View Post
I just listened to an interview where screwball... er.. Bettman mentioned that the NHL is losing between 18-20 mil per day and the players are losing between 8-10 mil per day. Seems to me that the owners are the ones here who should be worried.

And I still say that ever since I read the arbitration that the league published publicly, they are completely in the wrong. Let me explain... Firstly, the league is trying to slash the split money between the league and players giving the players a raw deal. Not only that, but they are also trying to chop the salary cap $10M. That's just freakin wrong. That's wrong is anyone's book.
That's just revenue most teams are making record profits though. Speak the truth Gary, not many teams losing money this year. All that TV money and no salaries to pay.

Confucius is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:04 PM
  #40
abev
HFBoards Sponsor
 
abev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Falconone View Post
This is an intersting perspective, let me offer words attributed Pastor Martin Niemolleron reflecting on the rise of Nazi Germany :

First they came for the Communists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.


F1
Godwin's law, activated.

abev is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:16 PM
  #41
Ginu
Registered User
 
Ginu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,679
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondillium View Post
(Not who you asked, but I'll answer)

Yes, I do. I have no relations to any players or owners. I want the players to take a 0% share if it gets me hockey. Sounds inconsiderate, but hell, I do not know these people nor do I care about them. That being said, I am not pro-owner persay. If the owners accepted an offer that was 100% players, I would again be happy. I don't care what the deal is, as long as there is one.

EDIT: To make this more clear, I'm not saying I hate both sides for not intentionally screwing themselves over to get hockey back. I completely understand why they are not doing what I suggest. I'm just saying I personally would definitely have no problem with one side getting completely screwed over if it benefited me.
So for those of you who don't care about the issue and just want to see hockey, I guess I should have asked who you think is making the bigger effort to get back on the ice.

Ginu is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 07:34 PM
  #42
JAX
Registered User
 
JAX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sault Ste. Marie
Country: Canada
Posts: 896
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Does anybody still believe the owners after the players went with a direct percentage and it was still rejected? The PA had a clause in there that revenue one year cannot be less than that of the previous year; but considering how the NHL added the rollback to the salary cap last CBA, they had to have a nugget in there for protection. Their premise, however, is now direct linkage and speaking the language of the NHL.

The NHL still rejected the NHLPA's proposal after 50 minutes. Does anybody still trust the owners?
There was linkage in year 1 of the deal at 56.5% and then every year after was more guaranteed raises.....I'm not even sure they even get to 50-50 in their offer for 5 years.

Don't listen to Fehr when he comes out after the meeting, it's all smoke and mirrors for a pr stunt. It doesn't take the league long to look into his offers and quickly realize what theyreally are.

JAX is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:48 PM
  #43
JKsilverstick*
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 884
vCash: 500
The PA offer is not linkage. It is the same garbage, once again reworded. It is all the benefits of linkage, but none of the risks.

JKsilverstick* is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 10:58 PM
  #44
hyster110
Registered User
 
hyster110's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamondillium View Post
(Not who you asked, but I'll answer)

Yes, I do. I have no relations to any players or owners. I want the players to take a 0% share if it gets me hockey. Sounds inconsiderate, but hell, I do not know these people nor do I care about them. That being said, I am not pro-owner persay. If the owners accepted an offer that was 100% players, I would again be happy. I don't care what the deal is, as long as there is one.

EDIT: To make this more clear, I'm not saying I hate both sides for not intentionally screwing themselves over to get hockey back. I completely understand why they are not doing what I suggest. I'm just saying I personally would definitely have no problem with one side getting completely screwed over if it benefited me.
you realize a 0 percent share would mean the player makes no salary right?

hyster110 is offline  
Old
11-22-2012, 11:01 PM
  #45
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,508
vCash: 500
Don't like these options.

I thought it was the first productive offer the NHLPA has made. Thought it had one really problematic clause and the back-diving thing wasn't good enough.

But I still feel there's enough there for the owners to counter. Feeling is the doom and gloom coming out of the PA is premature pending the response the NHL gives them this weekend. The players need to understand Bettman and Daly weren't going to look at anything that crossed the table and go "lol ok"

billybudd is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:27 AM
  #46
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,697
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cap'n Flavour View Post
Why not?

I mean the obvious answer is because the owners will have an easier time waiting it out. The question is why a majority of people on these forums support the owners' decision to play hardball to maximize concessions from the players. I suppose it's just another reflection of ignorant anti-union and anti-labour sentiment since it somehow always seems to be the NHLPA's fault for being locked out every 10 years or less.
This x1000. This entire thing is all bad for the players, the league is asking for concessions after making record revenues, and is not even remotely going to consider even a status quo contract. This speaks to a problem with the entire league finance system in general, so I don't blame the players one bit for ******** all over the idea that the way forward is to simply cut their piece of the pie smaller.

If I'm the players there has to be a fundamental change in league finances, likely regarding revenue sharing, or it's no deal.

Phu is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 03:32 AM
  #47
Milliardo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Zürich
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 1,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyster110 View Post
you realize a 0 percent share would mean the player makes no salary right?
Yes and like he says, he doesn't care.

Milliardo is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:09 PM
  #48
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,699
vCash: 0
I'll preface this with my standpoint - I have no dog in this fight, and in a perfect world we'd have a CBA negotiated that would prevent a work stoppage in the future.

I think the players' proposal should was close enough to the NHL's that it could have been negotiated off, instead of rejected outright. Specifically,

Core Economics:
The acceptance of 50/50 and the "make whole" proposal is huge, and really didn't need to be rejected outright by the NHL. Yes, I understand that the linkage and "minimum salary cap" (+20% of midpoint, 67 million) is conditional on revenues not falling, and frankly those are lumps that the NHL should accept and expect. Perhaps they could negotiate back on that item with "the player's share will not exceed 57% should revenues fall". The artificial cap doesn't matter since players only get a set share anyways.
Who's side I take: after the latest offer, I have to lean towards the players, as they've offered some of what the NHL has asked for, while building in some protection for themselves.

"Make Whole"
I hope to never hear this ******* term ever again after this ends. They're $182 million apart on this, or an extra $1.2 million / team / 5 years. Again, only reason these payments may be necessary, is if league revenues stall. Whatever happened to these 5% and 7% growth projections that both sides were throwing around less than a month ago?
Side I take: Players. Mostly because of the contracts being signed on September 14; if the Owners were that concerned about losing money *and* contract terms, they wouldn't have been handing out these deals.

Back Diving
Needs work, it's apparent that the PA's proposal wasn't thought through very well. The percentage of players that this is relevant to is what, maybe 5%? (~35/700) I wonder if the PA has asked its entire membership if the 5% variance rule is a hill they want to die on. My guess is they haven't.
Side I take: NHL. Players sign a contract, and if they fulfill the terms of that contract (play) they get the money owed to them, regardless of its structure. I see back diving as a method of cap circumvention, and a big reason why teams are losing money because the yearly percentage paid to players is based on an artificial average, not actual payments.

Revenue Sharing
I think revenue sharing is critical in solving some of the economic issues in the NHL. No matter what happens, there's always going to be a "weak sister" in a linked economic system. The PA is right on when it comes to propping these teams up, and if some of the big earners need to support these teams that they are still making money off, then so be it.
Side I take: Players.

Contract term limits
If back diving contracts aren't permitted, term limits are irrelevant. I wonder if the NHL can just internally decide that any contract variance of 5% or greater is considered "cap circumvention" and reject the contract? Or just require that the cap is calculated on the actual amount *gasp* paid to a player in a year counts towards the cap, not the average contract value (which would avoid escrow payments made to owners). Again, this probably only affects maybe 10% of the PA.
Side I take: Players. If a team and player agree to a ten year contract, who cares other than that team and that player? Provided, of course, its structure doesn't circumvent the salary cap (see above)

Free Agency
Not sure why this needs to change, other than to give an appearance the NHL will "give back" somewhere.
Side I take: neither. I don't really care. I like to think that small market teams get some protection from losing their player to free agency, but the salary cap provides enough parity that isn't really an issue anymore.

Guess I'm voting for the NHLPA.

Stewie Griffin is online now  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:18 PM
  #49
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,465
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by PensFanSince1989 View Post
Though calling Sportsnet a mouthpiece for the NHL is laughable.
Agreed. There is no doubt that all the broadcasters "are in bed" with the NHL, however, I tend to think that there are still stations that simply report the facts that are found by their reporters. Some are obviously biased, but even TSN does a good job of having an analyst or two that relate to one side and then the other for context. It does seem like 50 shades of grey though...

Seedling is offline  
Old
11-23-2012, 02:30 PM
  #50
Stewie Griffin
Moderator
Benevolent Overlord
 
Stewie Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,699
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seedling View Post
Agreed. There is no doubt that all the broadcasters "are in bed" with the NHL, however, I tend to think that there are still stations that simply report the facts that are found by their reporters. Some are obviously biased, but even TSN does a good job of having an analyst or two that relate to one side and then the other for context. It does seem like 50 shades of grey though...
Think about the following:

Who has paid the NHL millions of dollars to show NHL games?
Who is losing advertising revenue from NHL games not shown?

The answer to both is the major sports networks (also CBC). I don't see them as mouthpieces for anyone but themselves - and their major interest is getting hockey back on the air ASAP, and if not, it's talking about the negotiations with enough in-depth coverage that we might even know who supplies the doughnuts at the next bargaining session.

Stewie Griffin is online now  
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 10:49 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.