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.

LeBrun: NHL made new offer to NHLPA on Thursday (12/27)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-28-2012, 02:51 PM
  #151
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,905
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
What does this mean:
I believe previously the NHLPA could change the amount of escrow taken from players pay 4 times per year. IIRC in one of saskins side letters, the NHLPA agreed to pay from their general funds any shortfall that may have occured in teh amount of escrow taken.

ie, if the amount of escrow taken from the players was $5 million short of the total the NHL was owed to make it to 57% of HRR, the NHLPA would pay that difference.

I assume that difference would no longer be the responsibility of the PA? Who's would it be is unclear. I assume the increased ability for the PA to adjust the amount of escrow would allow them to more accurately obtain teh amount they need. Players make up the shortfall somehow?

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:51 PM
  #152
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,329
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyCrazed101 View Post
What does this mean:

Quote:
- Elimination of NHLPA "Guarantee" of Escrow shortfall and increased NHLPA discretion to determine in-season Escrow Rates.
Under the past CBA, if the escrow rate wasn't set high enough and after the season the players ended up owing the league a refund larger than the total amount in the escrow fund then the NHLPA was on the hook for making up the difference.

This proposal would appear to remove that obligation. While also offering more flexibility in establishing the escrow collection rate throughout the season.

mouser is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:52 PM
  #153
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by i am dave View Post
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything at all about keeping or modifying (or removing) the "35+ rule." That's one I'd like to see changed.
I didn't see anything about that either... however players in the AHL with contracts over X amount would count towards team caps (but not player share). So that nullifies part of that (stashing a player (+35?) in the minors). I hope they at least kept it as it was previously. Although maybe they dropped it as a 'give' to the PA? Dunno.

__________________
"Itís not as if Donald Fehr was lying to us, several players said. Rather, itís as if he has been economical with information, these players believe, not sharing facts these players consider to be vital."
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:55 PM
  #154
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,063
vCash: 873
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
You would think that it wouldn't be that hard when they can point to record growth and revenues almost each of the 7 years with the cap in place.
devils advocate.

did revenues go up BECAUSE of the cap or because of Rule changes ot the game to make it more exciting and fun?

Not sure you could link the record revenue growth to the cap.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:56 PM
  #155
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xref View Post
Nah, there is still time for the PA to offer a counter-proposal to this.
While I'm sure the NHLPA would give a counter-proposal and not accept the offer out right, that hasn't worked in the past. Each time the NHL gave them an offer it was countered Bettman had a fit in front of the media saying he didn't like it and we went back to square one.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:57 PM
  #156
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradD View Post
Would be nice instead of Edmonton getting the number one overall pick every year.
I'd prefer that than some sixth or seventh-worst team getting the #1 pick every year like what happens in the NBA. I'm fine with a full (14-team) lottery if it's weighted a little heavier towards the top than the NBA one is.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 02:58 PM
  #157
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by du5566 View Post
It will offer more league parity and force teams into good buisness practices.
If I here parity one more time so help me... THIS DOESN'T CREATE PARITY, IT MAKES A MESS OF THINGS. How would you like being a San Jose Sharks fan with a $60 Million dollar cap? What about your Bruins, huh? Sure, they'll fit under it, but you're gonna end up letting all your free agents go and plug them in with young prospects or plugs. If you haven't noticed, a lot of teams are over the cap or right up against it even with free agents departing. Many players are going to lose a crap ton of money over this deal if they can even find a job since a lot of teams will be looking to find cheap spare parts to plug their holes with.

There's your parity, right there. Keep it, I don't want it. Fair practices my behind, GMs will be scrambling to try and trade or wave other expensive players after their free buy out if they want wiggle room. FA will be a disaster for the players if they accept this.


Last edited by JmanWingsFan: 12-28-2012 at 03:05 PM.
JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:02 PM
  #158
Xref
Registered User
 
Xref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
While I'm sure the NHLPA would give a counter-proposal and not accept the offer out right, that hasn't worked in the past. Each time the NHL gave them an offer it was countered Bettman had a fit in front of the media saying he didn't like it and we went back to square one.
I want to see Bettman have another hissy fit. It's almost as entertaining as a John Tortorella post-game presser.

Xref is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:03 PM
  #159
Pepper
Registered User
 
Pepper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
devils advocate.

did revenues go up BECAUSE of the cap or because of Rule changes ot the game to make it more exciting and fun?

Not sure you could link the record revenue growth to the cap.
There was much more parity which made the league more exciting. So yes, cap was one of the reason for revenues going up.

Pepper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:05 PM
  #160
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,063
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
If I here parity one more time so help me... THIS DOESN'T CREATE PARITY, IT MAKES A MESS OF THINGS. How would you like being a San Jose Sharks fan with a $60 Million dollar cap? What about your Bruins, huh? Sure, they'll fit under it, but you're gonna end up letting all your free agents go and plug them in with young prospects or plugs. If you haven't noticed, a lot of teams are over the cap or right up against it even with free agents departing. Many players are going to lose a crap ton of money over this deal if they can even find a job since a lot of teams will be looking to find cheap spare parts to plug their holes with.

There's your parity, right there. Keep it, I don't want it. Fair practices my behind, GMs will be scrambling to try and trade or wave other expensive players after they buy out if they want wiggle room. FA will be a disaster for the players if they accept this.
Pro player here and I'm not buying the above.

The cap was at 39 million in 05-06 and the players did very well.

the cap at 60 million? teams are going to do just fine.

and if you can't field a competitive team capable of winning the Stanley Cup at 60 Million, you should find another line of work.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:06 PM
  #161
Tomas W
Registered User
 
Tomas W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,648
vCash: 500
Lets hope this gets solved now, I have a good gut feeling.

Tomas W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:06 PM
  #162
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
There was much more parity which made the league more exciting.
I completely disagree with this - the quality of hockey has steadily decreased under the previous CBA and I would like nothing more than to see it gone, for good.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:07 PM
  #163
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666 View Post
devils advocate.

did revenues go up BECAUSE of the cap or because of Rule changes ot the game to make it more exciting and fun?

Not sure you could link the record revenue growth to the cap.
It wouldn't be the cap, but the parity that the cap brought with it.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:07 PM
  #164
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,905
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJDevs26 View Post
I'd prefer that than some sixth or seventh-worst team getting the #1 pick every year like what happens in the NBA. I'm fine with a full (14-team) lottery if it's weighted a little heavier towards the top than the NBA one is.
Is it only the winner that's chosen in the NBA? Like if you finish last are you guranteed the 2nd spot or are all the picks determined by draft?

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:07 PM
  #165
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I completely disagree with this - the quality of hockey has steadily decreased under the previous CBA and I would like nothing more than to see it gone, for good.
Thankfully you're among the minority with this opinion.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:10 PM
  #166
cheswick
Non-registered User
 
cheswick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Peg City
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,905
vCash: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I completely disagree with this - the quality of hockey has steadily decreased under the previous CBA and I would like nothing more than to see it gone, for good.
You might be in a minority. Revenues under the previous CBA grew at a rate far exceeding inflation. There has to be some reason for it. It may very well be the added competitive balance.

I personally hate shoot outs but apparently the majority of fans love it.

cheswick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:14 PM
  #167
JmanWingsFan
Your average Jman
 
JmanWingsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere
Country: United States
Posts: 4,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
There was much more parity which made the league more exciting. So yes, cap was one of the reason for revenues going up.
Parity my foot. It's been the same group of teams that have consistently made the playoffs every year with a couple of different teams here and their since the last lockout. The only reason you see different teams is the other ones that were successful got incredibly bad due to mismanagement (EX Colorado, Dallas, Calgary) and other teams' young star talent finally developed and they got their act together to be able to attract the FAs needed to succeed (St. Louis, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, NYR). It happens with every league, and the cap has had little impact. I'd go so far as to say Hockey taking off recently is a correlation to teams being able to spend more as the cap steadily rose to the levels as the creation of "superteams" became possible again. People don't want this watered down parity nonsense. They want to watch the Red Wings of the world and the Penguins of the world in clashes of the titans. It makes for EXCITING ENTERTAINMENT.

JmanWingsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:15 PM
  #168
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,063
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepper View Post
There was much more parity which made the league more exciting. So yes, cap was one of the reason for revenues going up.
Was there??

there were 10 different teams that were in the previous 7 Finals before the last lockout.

there were 12 different teams that were in the last 7 Finals post lockout.

and looking further, the split between large and small markets were fairly even in terms of representation in the finals during both periods.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:15 PM
  #169
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
You might be in a minority.
It wouldn't be the first time. I can live with it.

The rule changes coming out of the last lockout helped - they really did - but the combination of depleted rosters and sliding back into old refereeing habits has really done a number on game play. IMO. By way of example, this past playoff season was one of the worst I've ever watched.

It's axiomatic that you can't have super heros without super villains - the current NHL doesn't really allow for much of either.

Anyway, each to their own.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:17 PM
  #170
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,063
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Is it only the winner that's chosen in the NBA? Like if you finish last are you guranteed the 2nd spot or are all the picks determined by draft?
all picks are done via the lottery.

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:19 PM
  #171
Riptide
Moderator
 
Riptide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Yukon
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JmanWingsFan View Post
Parity my foot. It's been the same group of teams that have consistently made the playoffs every year with a couple of different teams here and their since the last lockout.
Every team other than Toronto made the playoffs during the last CBA.

Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:22 PM
  #172
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riptide View Post
Every team other than Toronto made the playoffs during the last CBA.
A quarter of the league failed to win a single playoff series during the last CBA. Given the league's incredibly lenient entrance requirements for making the playoffs, that is a much more relevant factoid, IMO.

  Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:26 PM
  #173
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Is it only the winner that's chosen in the NBA? Like if you finish last are you guranteed the 2nd spot or are all the picks determined by draft?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

Currently the first three picks get determined by a four-number combo of ping-pong balls. The worst team has something like a 25% chance of winning and it creeps down from there till the 14th best team has like a .5% chance of winning it. It's actually happened a couple of times like Orlando getting Penny Hardaway or Chicago getting Derrick Rose from way back though

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:28 PM
  #174
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,617
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
While I'm sure the NHLPA would give a counter-proposal and not accept the offer out right, that hasn't worked in the past. Each time the NHL gave them an offer it was countered Bettman had a fit in front of the media saying he didn't like it and we went back to square one.
Because the NHLPA's counters have been so far away from reality. They need to start negotiating off the NHL's offer with their definition of 50/50 and not their own fantasy of an offer with enough under-the-table money to ensure the 50/50 split is more like 57/43 or 60/40.

NJDevs26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-28-2012, 03:48 PM
  #175
Freudian
Patty likes beef
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 28,681
vCash: 50
The league has done it's part to get it done. Now it's up to Fehr to act like an adult and come back with something reasonable without any poison pills (guaranteed cap, cap on escrow). Until we know he won't get too greedy, there isn't much reason to be overly optimistic.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:05 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.