HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Dreger: NMC, NTCs could be major sticking points for next CBA

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2017, 02:19 PM
  #51
Tom ServoMST3K
PAINT LIVES!
 
Tom ServoMST3K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Just off 75
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,209
vCash: 949
I would love if the two sides axed their leadership and started fresh.

While Bettman gets a bad rap, I really dislike the tone that Fehr puts across. He has made it seem like a fight and not a negotiation from the very beginning. As for Bettman, he has resided over so much labour unrest, that it seems to be just status quo for the owners to negotiate like this. A fresh face could maybe try and convince the PA that the owners are looking for a fair deal.

Tom ServoMST3K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 02:31 PM
  #52
BaccusDrunk
Registered User
 
BaccusDrunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 485
vCash: 500
Don't really see how NTC/NMC/Contract length or even the Olympics are lockout worthy issues for either side.

I think the only real lockout worthy fight will be if the NHLPA really is willing to dig in over HRR definitions in a bid to modify escrow in someway. As others have pointed right now the complaints about escrow from the player's side seem to boil down to not understanding math.

Again the NHL's willingness to extended the current CBA over the Olympics this year was pretty eye-opening as far as judging how 'happy' the NHL is with this CBA as is.

BaccusDrunk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:05 PM
  #53
WolvesAndWings
Registered User
 
WolvesAndWings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Country: Canada
Posts: 208
vCash: 500
I know buyout percentages have been mentioned but I don't think this is a CBA issue. That's a big market vs small market teams issue. The players won't argue against buyouts since they get their money regardless. Teams like NYR, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Detroit, LA, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc would be heavily in favour of better buyout percentages in relation to the cap, while the likes of Florida, Carolina, Arizona, Winnipeg, Nashville, etc are going to heavily oppose that.


Last edited by WolvesAndWings: 07-04-2017 at 03:10 PM.
WolvesAndWings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:16 PM
  #54
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BattleBorn View Post
They don't really choose where to play with the NTC for the most part, it's more about where they don't want to play.

Would you suggest some sort of opt out or player triggered buy out of their contract? It seems like that would create more issues than anything else.
Depends on the NTC. Can be a full NTC, can be a limited one.

I don't really think this needs to be all that complicated. Make bonuses eligible for buyouts, limit the length of NMC's, and that solves a lot of the current problems.

With all due respect to Winnipeg, I can understand why some players wouldn't want to live there. Or maybe some would prefer a small city like Winnipeg. Should be their choice.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:22 PM
  #55
BattleBorn
Global Moderator
Dead Dove-Do Not Eat
 
BattleBorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Carr.187 Km9
Country: Puerto Rico
Posts: 5,407
vCash: 500
The last I checked (and it has been a while) you could count the players with full no trade clauses on your hands and feet without having to remove both your socks.

I don't know that it's a huge issue.

__________________
You pressed You, referring to me. That is incorrect. The correct answer is You.
BattleBorn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:35 PM
  #56
USAUSA1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Are these really lockout worthy issues?

USAUSA1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:38 PM
  #57
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
I think that there are few full NTC's because most players would just opt for a NMC. Who wants to ride buses in the AHL at the end of their career when they already have millions in the bank?

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 03:40 PM
  #58
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAUSA1 View Post
Are these really lockout worthy issues?
No, the only lockout worthy issue is the NHL trying to redefine HRR, as has been reported. My guess is that NHL PR is pushing these narratives to try to distract from that.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 04:43 PM
  #59
Oxymoron
Registered User
 
Oxymoron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: VNN
Country: Austria
Posts: 247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
NHL GMs: "We need the owners and players to save us from our poor decision-making and negotiating abilities!"
GMs should be nowhere near CBA negotiations, really. GMs will commit any and every short-sighted stupidity in order to be able to keep their job for the next few years.

Oxymoron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 05:17 PM
  #60
Menzinger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Calgary/Toronto
Country: England
Posts: 14,622
vCash: 500
If you're a team who doesn't want a player to have a NTc or NMc then don't offer him one.... I just don't see how teams have any way to argue this. They're the ones who give them out, not the players

Menzinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 06:06 PM
  #61
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Ntc and nmcs hurt canadian teams. Players have them so they don't have to play in Canada

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 06:17 PM
  #62
IME
Registered User
 
IME's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Cloud
Country: Canada
Posts: 653
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNNumbers View Post
But how can you say it under pays anyone? The cap system, with the 50% of HRR determines how much money is in the pot. That's why the owners like it.

After that, it's just the players deciding how to decide it up, and I don't think the owners care about that.
It's not the players deciding how to divvy it up though. The owners push for longer RFA periods and more stringent ELC terms to suppress the value of young talent. On an open market McDavid would be making more than $925k + bonuses. Vegas would jump at paying $13MM right now for McDavid.

What I don't see is an obvious concession from the NHL. They want to chip away job security from the players, but what will they give up instead?

IME is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 06:21 PM
  #63
me2
Callng out the crap
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Blasting the bull***
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 31,000
vCash: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
It's a "signing" bonus, IMHO they should only be paid in the 1st year, which then leads to - no trading players with a signing bonus paid that year (until after the season). The no trading part shouldn't matter at this point since you aren't likely to be signing and trading anyway in most cases and players are going to be their full pay in the first year 99.9999% of the time.
I remember how I did this last

a player gets $2m (40%) signing bonus and $3m (60%) salary ($5m total that year).

The bonus is paid in July

There would be no pay apart from the bonus until the bonus is used up, the $3m salary is paid out from that point (in this example 40% of the way into the season pay restarts).

The player can be traded once he's back onto salary (40% of the season onwards in this example).

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 06:23 PM
  #64
MNNumbers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IME View Post
It's not the players deciding how to divvy it up though. The owners push for longer RFA periods and more stringent ELC terms to suppress the value of young talent. On an open market McDavid would be making more than $925k + bonuses. Vegas would jump at paying $13MM right now for McDavid.

What I don't see is an obvious concession from the NHL. They want to chip away job security from the players, but what will they give up instead?
Still makes no difference to the bottom line for the owners. Whatever HRR is, the players, collectively, get 50%.

What you are talking about is the owners wanting to retain their own home-grown talent. And, it's true. The highest value contracts are usually signed by players who will be beyond their best years when the contracts end. That's a strange system.

I'm not sure how to guess what would happen on an open market?

MNNumbers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 06:58 PM
  #65
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,871
vCash: 500
On an open market, Yakupov would have signed for $8m x 8 years as an 18 year old.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 07:00 PM
  #66
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,519
vCash: 500
What's the difference between an NTC/NMC and a player who just mails it because he doesn't like where he's being traded?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 07:13 PM
  #67
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,123
vCash: 500
Don't expect NTC or nmc to be something that the owners lose a season over

More likely to be a reduction in the max term of a contract. Think nhl teams would prefer not have in to hand out 8 year deals to vets in their early 30's. Burns begins his 8 year $8 million per deal this coming season at age 32.

Doubt the owners can get the max term down to 6 years. Likely have to settle for 7 years. Price could be reduced age for UFA and arbitration rights for players coming off elc. See what the trade-off is.

Escrow is tied to the cap ceiling formula. Have to change that in order to reduce escrow.

As for HRR, expect the PA to add anything they can to it, which they should be doing. They should also fight for a larger share of hrr.

Street Hawk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2017, 07:31 PM
  #68
Steve
Registered User
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfanatic89 View Post
How legit is a full season lockouts come fall 2019?
I think it's almost certain that they will lock the players out, 25% it's for the year.

Not to turn this into a players vs owners debate but as long as the owners get more and the fans return, there is no reason to stop locking them out.

Steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 10:40 AM
  #69
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom ServoMST3K View Post
I would love if the two sides axed their leadership and started fresh.

While Bettman gets a bad rap, I really dislike the tone that Fehr puts across. He has made it seem like a fight and not a negotiation from the very beginning. As for Bettman, he has resided over so much labour unrest, that it seems to be just status quo for the owners to negotiate like this. A fresh face could maybe try and convince the PA that the owners are looking for a fair deal.
Of course Fehr has to treat it like a fight. In 95, and 2005, the CBA's were viewed as huge victories for the owners. 4 years later, the owners were already grumbling. How many times do the players need to give in on everything?

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 11:09 AM
  #70
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
Of course Fehr has to treat it like a fight. In 95, and 2005, the CBA's were viewed as huge victories for the owners. 4 years later, the owners were already grumbling. How many times do the players need to give in on everything?


The players have guaranteed contracts... the fact that they can sign an 8 year deal and f off during their entire contract and still get paid... i think it's the owners who are giving in.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 12:53 PM
  #71
patnyrnyg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shwag33 View Post
The players have guaranteed contracts... the fact that they can sign an 8 year deal and f off during their entire contract and still get paid... i think it's the owners who are giving in.
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that the players have given in on the last 3 CBA's and it still isn't enough.

However to address your point, the owner has to agree to the 8 year contract, correct? So, he agrees to the deal KNOWING if the player gets hurt, lazy, game goes in the tank, he is still on the hook, correct? They also have the buy-out tool if needed. So again, players need to give in to save the owners from themselves? save themselves from making stupid decisions.

patnyrnyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 01:18 PM
  #72
Shwag33
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that the players have given in on the last 3 CBA's and it still isn't enough.

However to address your point, the owner has to agree to the 8 year contract, correct? So, he agrees to the deal KNOWING if the player gets hurt, lazy, game goes in the tank, he is still on the hook, correct? They also have the buy-out tool if needed. So again, players need to give in to save the owners from themselves? save themselves from making stupid decisions.
You're misconstruing the jobs of a NHL owner and GM.

The owners want competitive balance and a structured set of rules every team has to play by. The GM is to use whatever tools available to field the best team.

When mcdavid signs his huge deal, and he just decides to stop caring about hockey because he's set for life, it's the owners fault? Obviously no one expects that, but if it does happen you're saying its the owners/gm, not the players fault.

They are in a no win situation with guaranteed contracts. Every GM in the league signs Mcdavid to the deal he's going to get, every single one. If he doesn't he'd be fired.... but if he starts sucking who pays for it... the team, not the player.

Shwag33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 01:20 PM
  #73
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 9,919
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom ServoMST3K View Post
I would love if the two sides axed their leadership and started fresh.

While Bettman gets a bad rap, I really dislike the tone that Fehr puts across. He has made it seem like a fight and not a negotiation from the very beginning. As for Bettman, he has resided over so much labour unrest, that it seems to be just status quo for the owners to negotiate like this. A fresh face could maybe try and convince the PA that the owners are looking for a fair deal.
The PA struck first with the strike. Not really the first labor issue, but the first labor stoppage. It's been a fight ever since Eagleson got kicked out and Goodenow took over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxymoron View Post
GMs should be nowhere near CBA negotiations, really. GMs will commit any and every short-sighted stupidity in order to be able to keep their job for the next few years.
The problem is that GM's and coaches rely on players for their job security.

Quote:
Originally Posted by patnyrnyg View Post
That has NOTHING to do with the fact that the players have given in on the last 3 CBA's and it still isn't enough.

However to address your point, the owner has to agree to the 8 year contract, correct? So, he agrees to the deal KNOWING if the player gets hurt, lazy, game goes in the tank, he is still on the hook, correct? They also have the buy-out tool if needed. So again, players need to give in to save the owners from themselves? save themselves from making stupid decisions.
And if they don't make stupid decisions, then it's collusion. The whole point of free agency is stupid decisions. That's why the players wanted it. They know they're the talent, and all it takes is one stupid choice by a GM/owner to ruin it for everyone.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 01:42 PM
  #74
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,546
vCash: 500
If players really want to limit escrow they need to be willing to give up their rights to exercise an escalator on the cap. That more than anything is the main cause of the huge escrow problem hey have today.

__________________
Carpe Diem!!
FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2017, 01:55 PM
  #75
Cor
OT Thread Leader
 
Cor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,215
vCash: 72
I doubt there's a lockout.

There's less major issues than in 2012.

Cor is online now   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 04:00 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.