Bombastik der Teutone Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 this would be a cut of 6,3 million compared to last year and it will be no problem for our league if the players salaries also drops. i like that they have a plan how the cap rises in the next 5 years. if i would be a player i would rather take a paycut instead of not playing or playing in europe...and that some player contracts are just ridiculous is more than obvious IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Romo Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 How would the rollbacks work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 Like this: NOTICE TO ALL TEAMS: If the new CBA, whatever it may be, contains a salary rollback of any kind, our contracts will also be rolled back by that percentage. Players making under $1 million will not be effected at all by the rollback, and no player who has their salary reduced by the rollback will go under $1 million per season. Examples: (assuming a rollback of oh, let's say, 7%) Sidney Crosby Current Cap Hit: $8.7 million 7% Rollback: $609,000 New Cap Hit: $8.091 million Maxim Lapierre Current Cap Hit: $1.2 million 7% Rollback: $84,000 New Cap Hit: $1.116 million Random Player Current Cap Hit: $105,000 7% Rollback: $7,350 New Cap Hit: $1 million <--- cannot drop below $1 million Tanner Glass Current Cap Hit: $825,000 7% Rollback: N/A New Cap Hit: $825,000 (no change) But this rollback only happens if the NHLs new CBA includes a rollback. I'm wondering how the NHL figures dropping the cap to $58 million without doing some sort of salary rollback is going to work with teams already committing so many dollars their roster. Over half the league (16 teams) are currently over that mark already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 an average salary of 2.5million in my opinion is more than enough money to play a game for a year, even though you can only at most milk your NHL career for 12-20 years, the compensation is immense. Its funny, I am very highly pro union and pro labour in almost all my political and economic leanings, and one of my best buddies is a businessman, and he is very pro money, ownership and management in his. On this issue we have swapped sides, he thinks the players have a legitimate case to make even more money than last year, while I think they should just say the salary starts at 1m and is capped at 10m, no term longer than 5years, and the cap is 2.5m per player on average...go. We swapped stances in this particular dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 an average salary of 2.5million in my opinion is more than enough money to play a game for a year, even though you can only at most milk your NHL career for 12-20 years, the compensation is immense. Its funny, I am very highly pro union and pro labour in almost all my political and economic leanings, and one of my best buddies is a businessman, and he is very pro money, ownership and management in his. On this issue we have swapped sides, he thinks the players have a legitimate case to make even more money than last year, while I think they should just say the salary starts at 1m and is capped at 10m, no term longer than 5years, and the cap is 2.5m per player on average...go. We swapped stances in this particular dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 How you can be on the owners side baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champions of Nothing Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I am not really on a side, but I don't think its that big a deal for a guy earning over a million dollars a year to play a game to take slightly less, lets say its 10% less than to lose a season (*arguably 10% of any average pro career) and then settle for some form of pay cut... if the players drop the season on principle, they lose 10% of their career earnings due to lost year....then they settle for say a 5% cut...they total a 15% loss on their average NHL careers.....whereas if they just go play this year for whatever millions they do get..they don't lose as much over the term of their careers. The two dozen that would lose more, I don't think have the best interests of the other 800 NHL players at heart. I do see the players side too! If the NHL realizes 3.2 billion in sales related directly to the talent on the ice: that talent deserves a cut, absolutely. I just don't care if the cut is 40%, 50% or 60%...i just don't want to lose a year of NHL hockey over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 All while the NHL billionaires get richer off them, and get what they want for the second time in 8 years by bullying the players. It is a very complex situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I have no sympathy for the owners. They created the flawed system, and rather then working together as a group of owners to help the ailing franchises (including moving them to better locations... i.e. Atlanta to Winnipeg); they want to take money from their product (the players); and then justifying it like they are so hard done by. The players appear willing to make some concessions to 'help' the owners out, but also realize that the owners need to make the correct steps to fix the underlying issues. As someone who LOVES hockey - the possibility of another lockout is just infuriating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Absolutely and I agree on all points, I guess I just also see that millionaire players have some room to give as well, if it means getting a season on the ice this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted August 29, 2012 Author Share Posted August 29, 2012 I have no sympathy for the owners. They created the flawed system, and rather then working together as a group of owners to help the ailing franchises (including moving them to better locations... i.e. Atlanta to Winnipeg); they want to take money from their product (the players); and then justifying it like they are so hard done by. The players appear willing to make some concessions to 'help' the owners out, but also realize that the owners need to make the correct steps to fix the underlying issues. As someone who LOVES hockey - the possibility of another lockout is just infuriating. This, exactly. We lost the entire 2004-05 season so the owners could get the system they wanted. And they got it. And then they screwed it up by doing business the same way they did before the lockout that got them into the mess in the first place. Back then I thought the players were being greedy, though I understood their issues, I felt much like Primal does now. But now? No sympathy for the owners at all. They got the system they wanted and the NHL championed record revenues every season since then. Every year at Bettman's little state of the NHL address he talks about how well the game is doing and how they've increased revenues, and outlines all these areas of the business that are thriving and growing. Then the CBA negotiations come up and they're back to crying poor. 'The economics of the game are broken.' Sorry Gary, I don't buy it. Not anymore. Not this time. Every year the cap goes up. Why? Because of the fans. You might remember us, the little people upon which you guys get this pile of money you're currently bickering over how to divvy up. The ones that shell out big bucks for tickets, parking, merchandise, concession stands, etc. etc. etc. and every other penny we contribute to your 'hockey related revenues'. The cap going up may impact smaller market teams who have to spend more to get to the floor, and that might put a few teams in trouble. That's where actual MEANINGFUL revenue sharing comes into play. Take all the 'hockey related revenues', and put it into one big pot, and take the owners cut and divide it equally into 30 parts. If after that, a team still can't make a go of it (I'm looking at you Phoenix..) then they shouldn't be in that market to begin with. But that revenue sharing to bail out the owners should come from the owners. You're in a tough spot? Help yourselves out of it, don't expect to just claw it back from the players because you overspent. 'The players are well compensated already'. The owners are compensated even more. Period. 'The players should just take a cut to get this done.' They did that last time, a big one. 24%. That's huge. Anyone else willing to give up 1/4 of your earnings to go back to work? I know I wouldn't. But they did it, and where did it get them. We're right back where we started because the owners can't be trusted to competently run their own organizations. The players already took a hit, and the owners proved that the problem never was the player salaries, it was ownerships mis-management. That much is clear. The players taking another hit here just to bail out the owners will only result in us being back in this same situation after the new CBA reaches it's end. "We need shorter term contracts and player salaries are skyrocketing' Is that so??? Then stop offering every star player a 10-14 year deal. The players aren't forcing you to offer these monster contracts. The owners pay the bills, and they authorize these moves. If you don't want to do a 10 year deal, don't offer it to the player. If you don't want to pay a guy like Dennis Wideman $5 million a season, don't offer it to him. The NHL is a business, yes. But the players aren't just their workforce, they are the product as well. To me, the fact that we're even mentioning the word lockout after the disaster in 2004-05 is infuriating and insulting. It's a slap in the face to every loyal fan that supported the NHL throughout the lockout and returned with wallets open upon it's return. It's an insult to every hockey fan, young and old, who just want to enjoy a hockey game without hearing about billionaires bickering with millionaires over who isn't getting enough of the massive pot of our hard earned money. It's a detriment to the actual possible growth that the NHL could have realized going into this season. The New York Rangers win the Cup in 1994 (dammit..) and the NHL has a big chance to keep growing the game. Sports Illustrated calls us the hottest sport on the planet. Lockout. Momentum killed. Tampa Bay wins it in 2004 and the NHL has a chance to capitalize on the popularity surge in establishing their southern markets. Lockout. Momentum killed. Los Angeles wins the Cup in 2012 and again the league has a chance to make meaningful strides in growing the game in the States (wasn't that Bettman's big mandate anyways?) and here we are again, talking lockout instead of training camp. It's ludicrous, disgraceful and insulting. If they want to actually bring salaries in line, don't rollback current player salaries. Do the reverse of the NHL's proposal. Don't start at $58 million and then go to pre-set salary caps in the future. Play this season at $70 million, like it would have been. Then have the cap go DOWN to pre-set levels in future years to bring salaries more in line and settle out at $55 million. That gives teams time to learn the nuances of the new CBA. It gives them flexibility in the future as some contracts expire so teams aren't burying players in the minors to get their cap down. And it restricts teams a bit, protecting them from themselves so that when they need to re-sign players, they don't have as much cap space to fill holes, and they're forced to offer more reasonable salaries, thus resetting the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 The sad part about this is... the real fans... will have no choice but to put up with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 This, exactly. We lost the entire 2004-05 season so the owners could get the system they wanted. And they got it. And then they screwed it up by doing business the same way they did before the lockout that got them into the mess in the first place. Back then I thought the players were being greedy, though I understood their issues, I felt much like Primal does now. But now? No sympathy for the owners at all. They got the system they wanted and the NHL championed record revenues every season since then. Every year at Bettman's little state of the NHL address he talks about how well the game is doing and how they've increased revenues, and outlines all these areas of the business that are thriving and growing. Then the CBA negotiations come up and they're back to crying poor. 'The economics of the game are broken.' Sorry Gary, I don't buy it. Not anymore. Not this time. Every year the cap goes up. Why? Because of the fans. You might remember us, the little people upon which you guys get this pile of money you're currently bickering over how to divvy up. The ones that shell out big bucks for tickets, parking, merchandise, concession stands, etc. etc. etc. and every other penny we contribute to your 'hockey related revenues'. The cap going up may impact smaller market teams who have to spend more to get to the floor, and that might put a few teams in trouble. That's where actual MEANINGFUL revenue sharing comes into play. Take all the 'hockey related revenues', and put it into one big pot, and take the owners cut and divide it equally into 30 parts. If after that, a team still can't make a go of it (I'm looking at you Phoenix..) then they shouldn't be in that market to begin with. But that revenue sharing to bail out the owners should come from the owners. You're in a tough spot? Help yourselves out of it, don't expect to just claw it back from the players because you overspent. 'The players are well compensated already'. The owners are compensated even more. Period. 'The players should just take a cut to get this done.' They did that last time, a big one. 24%. That's huge. Anyone else willing to give up 1/4 of your earnings to go back to work? I know I wouldn't. But they did it, and where did it get them. We're right back where we started because the owners can't be trusted to competently run their own organizations. The players already took a hit, and the owners proved that the problem never was the player salaries, it was ownerships mis-management. That much is clear. The players taking another hit here just to bail out the owners will only result in us being back in this same situation after the new CBA reaches it's end. "We need shorter term contracts and player salaries are skyrocketing' Is that so??? Then stop offering every star player a 10-14 year deal. The players aren't forcing you to offer these monster contracts. The owners pay the bills, and they authorize these moves. If you don't want to do a 10 year deal, don't offer it to the player. If you don't want to pay a guy like Dennis Wideman $5 million a season, don't offer it to him. The NHL is a business, yes. But the players aren't just their workforce, they are the product as well. To me, the fact that we're even mentioning the word lockout after the disaster in 2004-05 is infuriating and insulting. It's a slap in the face to every loyal fan that supported the NHL throughout the lockout and returned with wallets open upon it's return. It's an insult to every hockey fan, young and old, who just want to enjoy a hockey game without hearing about billionaires bickering with millionaires over who isn't getting enough of the massive pot of our hard earned money. It's a detriment to the actual possible growth that the NHL could have realized going into this season. The New York Rangers win the Cup in 1994 (dammit..) and the NHL has a big chance to keep growing the game. Sports Illustrated calls us the hottest sport on the planet. Lockout. Momentum killed. Tampa Bay wins it in 2004 and the NHL has a chance to capitalize on the popularity surge in establishing their southern markets. Lockout. Momentum killed. Los Angeles wins the Cup in 2012 and again the league has a chance to make meaningful strides in growing the game in the States (wasn't that Bettman's big mandate anyways?) and here we are again, talking lockout instead of training camp. It's ludicrous, disgraceful and insulting. If they want to actually bring salaries in line, don't rollback current player salaries. Do the reverse of the NHL's proposal. Don't start at $58 million and then go to pre-set salary caps in the future. Play this season at $70 million, like it would have been. Then have the cap go DOWN to pre-set levels in future years to bring salaries more in line and settle out at $55 million. That gives teams time to learn the nuances of the new CBA. It gives them flexibility in the future as some contracts expire so teams aren't burying players in the minors to get their cap down. And it restricts teams a bit, protecting them from themselves so that when they need to re-sign players, they don't have as much cap space to fill holes, and they're forced to offer more reasonable salaries, thus resetting the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeak Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I vote we send Curt to negotiate on behalf of all fantasy owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I am 100% in the corner of the guy making less than 120 k's a year who is being asked to take a pay cut (*and for the record if your taking home less than 30k a year I want you all to get a payraise emmediately) but not 100% in the corner of a millionaire making millions a season to play 82 games of hockey with no penalties related to poor performance or not making playoffs et cetera. When it comes to millionaire employees against billionaire owners, I am not really on a side: although for the record i was almost entirely on side with the players last go around, as i felt the demands were too high from the league side. It cost everyone a season of hockey, which as i said is often and mostly 10% of an NHL players career..so they capitulated at the 24% cut AFTER losing 10% of their lifetime earnings potential...pretty bad negotiating from the players side don't you think? If this is about a 10% cut or lose a season, which is usually 10% of a playing career...i would just take the cut, maybe dicker for a smaller one and play hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Curt, you almost got there but you steered away from it: The reason there are disruptions while they fight over money at each interval where the potential to grow the sport in the states is very simple and very clear: it is no longer about money at each of those points along the way you mentioned...its about MORE money. You and I could bicker over 24 million till the cows come home, but as soon as we realize next year it is likely going to be 39million, and a decade from now it will be 99 million...then its more than just bickering, its war. "War" in labour negotions is lockouts/strikes...this time around i don't want to see a lost season, and I don't think the players have much to stand on. Its the old addage "wwill you sleep with me for a million dollars...yes...how about 10 bucks? .....we already established your a hoe, now we are just dickering on the price. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 You know who really gets hurt by a lockout? The run of the mill employees. Me. But it won't happen this time. Dolla dolla bills, y'all. / Anyone thinking of offering for Mike Danton? You shouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 You work at the rink or for the organization? I was thinking of offering pro bono some of my services to the Victoria Royals, sort of a foot in the door to the real hockey world, duno how that would work though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 You work at the rink or for the organization? I was thinking of offering pro bono some of my services to the Victoria Royals, sort of a foot in the door to the real hockey world, duno how that would work though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I know the bar owners will be hurt, my sister in law owns one, and her revenue between a random summer saturday evening with no 'national' sports on the tv's and the same kind of evening WITH a national sport on TV, is night and day. They can give away tv's and still turn profits like crazy during playoff hockey for instance..and can barely afford to turn on tv's and still turn a profit if there is no sports on. oh, and that is very cool, i will let you know next time i am over at a game! haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.