HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Brooks: Fehr will fight roll-back attempts

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2011, 09:01 AM
  #1
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,944
vCash: 500
Brooks: Fehr will fight roll-back attempts

Brooks speculates that Fehr will not accept a roll-back, he basically says that its the lone issue that Fehr would not let go of.

Brooks starts by saying:

Quote:
Unless a team is a serious Stanley Cup contender prepared to shoot the moon in an attempt to win, it is not about this year.

Instead, it is about maintaining maximum flexibility coming out of next summer's CBA negotiations that are sure to yield a dramatically reduced cap.

[...]

Percentage of the gross is Bettman's baby. It is not going away. It is, however, going down, and if the owners have their way, it is going down dramatically, to somewhere in the range of 48-to-50 percent.
And then:
Quote:
The only way to prevent chaos -- anarchy! -- under a dramatically reduced cap is to effect a rollback accompanied by amnesty buyouts. But it is inconceivable Fehr, who is earning $3 million per as head of the PA (three times more than he earned as head of the baseball players' union) would preside over a rollback in his one and only negotiation with Bettman and the Board of Governors.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...#ixzz1QTzYBhxG

And Brooks then go on and preach that Slats should manage his cap with care so to speak.

This is a extremely important issue for how a organization should be run from now on and up untill the new CBA. Because if there is a roll-back, if Brooks is wrong -- things will be status que after the lockout, or scratch that, it will probably become harder then ever to get stars because the KHL will be a tougher competitor and if you cannot dump players in the AHL, there will be even less mobility on the market.

So we have two options on our hands, and the impact of what option the new CBA result in will have a extreme impact on what will happened once it is launched.

And I just do not get why Fehr would fight so hard against a roll-back? I just do not get it?

We are looking at the cap going down up to 10-12%. If its 64m by the time the new CBA is negotiated -- that would mean that the cap would go down to like 56-58m. Teams would have 6-8m less to spend from one year to another. Like Brooks says, that results in anarchy, nothing else. And its only really good for the players with long term deals, while it screws every single FA the first summer with the new CBA tremendously. Tremendously. And it gives the KHL a big boost because they get a boatload of players for free etc.

The players will get X% of the gross no matter if there is a roll-back or not. If there is not a roll back, like 60% of the players (the ones under contract from one year to another) gets to keep 10-12% of what they signed on for; and those 10-12% are directly paid by the 30% of the players who will be resigned by teams without any money to spend and make a helluva lot less then what they would any normal summer, and around 10% of players who will get their careers destroyed because no team can afford them and they are forced to go to the KHL.

It just do not make any sense to fight a roll-back.

The illustrate how much this matters, look at the two following examples:
Option 1. We believe that there will be a roll-back of 12%. We give Richards for example a 6.25m contract for 8 years (50m).

By the begining of the 2012-13 season, with the roll-back, Brad Richards would make 0.9 x 6.25 m = 5.65 million per year. 5.65m.

Even with a new CBA, the cap will keep going up. Every economy grows. Even with just a 5% yearly increase in the cap, the cap would be 75m in the last year of Richards contract. And thats by counting on a very small yearly increase in the cap. Odds are that the cap will be close to 100m in 2018 then 75m for sure, I mean if the growth of the NHL the last 20-30 years is any indication it would be close to 125m in 2020...

Option 2. There is no roll-back and we do not sign Richards. After resigning the RFA's we stand there next sumer with a roster of 14 players and 12 m in cap space and no first line center and no PPQB, with the following top UFA's on the market:
http://www.capgeek.com/free_agents.p...1&fa_type_id=2

Alex Semin
Shane Doan
Dustin Penner
JM Liles
T Ruutu
Brent Burns
Ryan Sutter

And thats as things are one full year before that sumer. We all know that 50-75% of those names will be off the market long before they becomes UFA's. Odds are that someone like Penner is the only good UFA out there. And with a lower cap, someone like Semin could definitely get snatched by the KHL.

And, we would definitely NOT be the only team with cap space. Many teams have budgets etc. Or just as "well managed" caps as we do. I mean 3 of those 7 names mention above hit the market, the one we want might just as well be chased by like a Colorado with a better looking future and 20m of cap space...


Last edited by Ola: 06-27-2011 at 09:07 AM.
Ola is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:42 AM
  #2
ReverbAndDelay
In on the Kill Taker
 
ReverbAndDelay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Jersey
Country: Argentina
Posts: 252
vCash: 500
Where as I agree, lets take something into consideration.

Say Player A is making 3mil a year in the NHL, and player B is making 1mil in the AHL. Player A gets offered a 4mil contract from the KHL and Player B gets offered a 1.8mil contract from the KHL. The question they would ask themselves would be "is the extra cash REALLY worth playing all the way in Russia?"

Maybe it's just me, but in no way shape or form would I, unless it was my native country or at least close to my native country, move allllllllll the way to Russia for some extra cash.

Now I'm not saying there aren't players who would. Sure there are. However I think the vast majority of North American players, who make up the vast majority of this league, would be quite happy to stay in North America.

Is it a problem? Yes. is it as big a problem as it seems? Time will tell, but I really don't think it is.

Edit: For the record, the only nations outside of the old eastern block I'd be worried about losing players from would be players from Sweden, Norway, etc etc, however I think the vast majority would prefer to play here than in Russia.


Last edited by ReverbAndDelay: 06-27-2011 at 09:43 AM. Reason: Addition.
ReverbAndDelay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 09:59 AM
  #3
free0717
Registered User
 
free0717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Old Bridge, NJ
Posts: 2,320
vCash: 500
If the players agree to a smaller percentage of the gross, a salary rollback almost double of the rollback of gross percentage must be allowed.

The real problem is not the players. Its the same as the NFL. The large markets do not want to revenue share with the smaller markets. So they are taking it out on the players.

Last CBA, I was on the owners side. This time I am on the players side.

You want to see more teams at the midlevel, Institute greater revenue sharing.
Then you will see parity in this league.

free0717 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 10:10 AM
  #4
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,092
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
And I just do not get why Fehr would fight so hard against a roll-back? I just do not get it?
Really? You don't understand why the head of the players union would be against an across-the-board reduction of salaries for every player he represents? Especially considering that they rolled back salaries 24% in the last CBA, the CBA that was supposed to fix all these problems.

The smart thing to do, rather than roll back salaries or lower the cap, would be to freeze the cap. Let the owners and players negotiate a new percentage, be it 48, 50 or whatever.

Once the new percentage is determined, freeze the cap until the new percentage is met. Only then will the cap begin to go up again (assuming revenues continue to go up). That's fair for the players and gives the owners at least some cost surety over the next few years, until the new percentage is met.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 10:18 AM
  #5
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,247
vCash: 500
I think Brooks is dead wrong. There was a lot more uncertainty in 2004 when the owners were instituting a cap rather than modifying an existing system. If (BIG IF) there was ever a cap rollback, there will be a corresponding rollback in exisitng contracts. Gettting guys (especially the RFAs) signed to reasonable long term contracts now is a good strategy. Front loaded money will help close the Richards deal.

The best the NHL can get from the players right now is a cap freeze where the cap stays steady for a couple of years while revenues grow, reducing the percentage to the players. That's a best case. Worst case, another disasterous strike and several weaker franchises going away.

Most important point of Brooks article -- Fehr is undefeated in these types of negotiations.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 10:19 AM
  #6
bobbop
Henrik & Pop
 
bobbop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Suburban Phoenix
Country: United States
Posts: 5,247
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Once the new percentage is determined, freeze the cap until the new percentage is met. Only then will the cap begin to go up again (assuming revenues continue to go up). That's fair for the players and gives the owners at least some cost surety over the next few years, until the new percentage is met.
Great post -- this is the only viable solution. The only question is the numbers and then the dressing around the deal.

bobbop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 10:49 AM
  #7
Stealth JD
Drexel's dead!!!
 
Stealth JD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Safari Motor Motel
Country: United States
Posts: 6,517
vCash: 500
It's the revenue of the top-markets (Tor, Mtl, NYR, etc.) that are killing the small-market teams (Fla, Nash, Stl)...no way can those lower-tier teams commit a minimum of $50M for a roster. And yet they have to because of the revenue being generated by the "haves".

Either revenue needs to be calculated on the middle 10 teams and extrapolated (excluding the 10 largest and smallest), or revenue sharing has to be much greater for the "have-nots". Without a reduction in the cap-floor, too many teams are going to be hurting. And if the cap continues to be tied to a % of league revenues, the only way to reduce the floor, is to increase the ceiling...which takes us right back to the pre-lockout days when one team could have a $15M payroll, while it's competitor has a $75M payroll.

Stealth JD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 12:10 PM
  #8
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 14,217
vCash: 500
Fehr can fight it all he wants, but there's going to be a reduction in the end. I don't think it will be drastic... along the lines of moving from 54% to 50%...

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 02:50 PM
  #9
nyr2k2
Can't Beat Him
 
nyr2k2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Country: United States
Posts: 24,836
vCash: 50
Awards:
Get 'em, Donny.

__________________

It's just pain.
nyr2k2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 02:55 PM
  #10
ogie
Registered User
 
ogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Staten Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,271
vCash: 500
This threat of players bolting to the KHL is nonsense. There has not been a single star player (non russian) bolt to the KHL to make more money. It is very simple, Canadian and American kids grow up dreaming of playing in the NHL and winning the Stanley Cup, not going to russia to play in front of empty stands. It is not always about the money.

ogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:54 PM
  #11
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 81,440
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth JD View Post
It's the revenue of the top-markets (Tor, Mtl, NYR, etc.) that are killing the small-market teams (Fla, Nash, Stl)...no way can those lower-tier teams commit a minimum of $50M for a roster. And yet they have to because of the revenue being generated by the "haves".

Either revenue needs to be calculated on the middle 10 teams and extrapolated (excluding the 10 largest and smallest), or revenue sharing has to be much greater for the "have-nots". Without a reduction in the cap-floor, too many teams are going to be hurting. And if the cap continues to be tied to a % of league revenues, the only way to reduce the floor, is to increase the ceiling...which takes us right back to the pre-lockout days when one team could have a $15M payroll, while it's competitor has a $75M payroll.
Please. There should be an advantage for teams that actually make the league money. Why should St. Louis get the same advantages of a team who actually makes a lot of money? Why even bother making money if it's just going to go to prop up a poor little team that can't afford to compete?

You want everything to be equal. True equality is utopian and will never happen.

I do think revenue sharing should be increased a bit, but not so that each team can spend well over the cap floor. Revenue sharing should somehow be tied with making sure all teams can afford to spend to the floor and no higher. If they want to risk spending higher, than go ahead.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner
ECL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:49 PM
  #12
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
Really? You don't understand why the head of the players union would be against an across-the-board reduction of salaries for every player he represents? Especially considering that they rolled back salaries 24% in the last CBA, the CBA that was supposed to fix all these problems.
You must have misunderstood how the cap works.

Basically, in 2011-12 the players will make like 57% of a number agreed upon in the current CBA, the "revenue" of the NHL.

There is actually no direct link between what number a players contract say that he will make and the amount of USD that ends up on his bank account when times due. Its indirect. If a player makes 1m, you, to simplyfi things, divide that with the total amount earned of all players in the NHL and multipli that with the players percentage of the gross revenue. But its down afterwards through escrow accounts.

A roll back would not in any way what-so-ever effect how much money the NHL pays out to the players per season. Not in any way. It would ONLY effect how the money is divided among the players.

Sure, I get why Fehr would be against a lower cap. Sure, I see that there is argument against a roll-back -- more then anything else, you can just say pacta sunt servanda. A contract should be held. If a player signs a contract that says 1m per, its not a unions business to make it say 0.9m. Of course I get that.

But if Bettman manage to lower the cap, its fait accompli for Fehr, he will stand there with a situation that potentially would be extremely unfair for not so small part of his members.

Ola is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 05:57 PM
  #13
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogie View Post
This threat of players bolting to the KHL is nonsense. There has not been a single star player (non russian) bolt to the KHL to make more money. It is very simple, Canadian and American kids grow up dreaming of playing in the NHL and winning the Stanley Cup, not going to russia to play in front of empty stands. It is not always about the money.
Well, to start with, you say it yourself -- a bunch of Russians have bolted and some Czech's. And definitely a bunch of other players too, but not the stars of course, but still a lot of players. And that of course effects the league.

And sure, its not only about the money. But it starts with like 3rd pairing D's and 3rd/4th line forwards, some players never bloom late because they aren't around any more etc etc etc.

Like, I am not saying its a big deal or anything. But the KHL is growing by the year and the KHL is competing with the NHL. Sure its way behind, and sure, I do not think its much of a threat basically. But its enough of a threat to not do them any favors at least. Before we know it the NHL starts to loose players like Tyutin and Kesla and Tallinder and guys like that, and somewhere down the line, it starts to hurt.

Ola 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 05:47 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.