Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

[Article] SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: CBA MYTHS VS. FACTS

Report

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

Poll: Should this thread by sticky? (34 member(s) have cast votes)

Should this thread by sticky?

  1. Yes (7 votes [20.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.59%

  2. No (27 votes [79.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 79.41%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:11 PM

There seems to be a widespread variety of misconceptions regarding the ongoing CBA negotiations and the potential of an impending lockout. We, the hockey fans, are the driving force behind the very existence of the league. Without us, there is no NHL. It is as a group that we have this great impact and it as a group that we must be well informed. Well informed about how the league will be the cause of any potential lockout, this time around. Effective use of this knowledge, as a group, is the only way we will be able to encourage a healthy, stable league.

Instead of having to wade through all of the discussion in the "Official" CBA negotiations thread, I hope this can serve as readily available source reaching as many CDC viewers as possible. With such a large user base, CDC has the potential to be a powerful medium spreading the information to others who love the game of hockey as much as we do.

Please, for the love of hockey, lets exercise our power as fans to help preserve the league and game we hold so dear.


SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT: CBA MYTHS VS. FACTS

NHLPA.com Staff
September 04, 2012


With a vast amount of information available on the state of current CBA negotiations, it can be difficult to separate myth from fact. Here is a useful chart that breaks down some of the most common myths on CBA negotiations.


Myth:
Gary Bettman and the NHL owners have made a “meaningful and significant” alteration to their first proposal.

Fact:
Under the NHL owners’ first proposal the players’ share of Hockey Related Revenue (HRR) would fall from 57% from 43%. This is a payroll reduction of $460M, or 24%, on 2011/12 numbers. Their second proposal would reduce the player share to 46% of HRR, or “only” 19.3%.

This is the equivalent of the NHLPA making a proposal seeking 71% of HRR (mirroring the decrease in the owners’ proposal) and then making a second proposal seeking “only” 68% of HRR. Should that be treated as a “significant” and “meaningful” move in the owners’ direction worth more than $400 million?

Of course not. Nor should the owners’ proposal. The owners have made no concessions. Every part of their proposal is much more favorable to them than the current agreement. A concession is when you give up something you have, not limiting by a small amount that which you want but don’t have.

The players, on the other hand, have made real concessions in order to reach an agreement.



Myth:
Gary Bettman said about a potential lockout: “Both sides have to bear responsibility. Whether it’s a strike or a lockout, it makes zero difference.”

Fact:
A lockout is very much a choice; no law compels a lockout. The owners seem intent on making that choice, and doing so at the first possible moment. They have experience in locking the players out: this will be the 3rd consecutive lockout since Bettman became NHL Commissioner.) The players have not even considered a strike.

The law allows for the season to start on time under the terms of the existing CBA so long as both sides are willing to do so. The players are willing to continue to negotiate and also continue to work until a deal is reached that is fair to both sides. The owners’, apparently are not so willing. If training camps and the 2012-13 NHL season do not start on time, it will be the owners’ decision and their decision alone.



Myth:
Gary Bettman accused the players of “stonewalling” the negotiations.

Fact:
The players are not “stonewalling”. They have simply refused to accept the owners’ outrageous demands. There was and is plenty of time to reach an agreement and begin the season without interruption.

The players have made proposals to limit their salaries and to implement far reaching revenue sharing.



Myth:
Gary Bettman says of revenue sharing: “It is a non-issue… a distraction.”

Fact:
Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.

After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.

The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?



Myth:
The NHL maintains that the starting point for these negotiations is that the owners’ should be “paying less to the players.”

Fact:
Why? When Gary Bettman and the owners cancelled the entire 2004-05 season to institute a salary cap, they also rolled-back player salaries by 24% across the board. Despite those massive concessions (billions of dollars over the life of the current CBA) and with revenues now more than $ 1 Billion per year more than before the lockout, the NHL wants to massively reduce salaries yet again.

What is the rationale? Where would the savings go? No answers have been made to these questions; simply a statement that they want to pay less. That is no surprise. Every employer in every industry wants to do that.

Moreover, since the lockout, the owners have done nothing to address the rapid escalation in non-player costs, which have risen at a far higher rate than the players’ share. To date there has been no proposal or even any stated willingness to constrain these costs, or, indeed, to limit or reduce any costs other than what goes to the players.

Players are offering real concessions, worth about $450 M over the next three years if the NHL grows at the rate it has the last several year, and perhaps nearly double that if it grows at the rate of the last two seasons. The players are willing to do their part, but are not willing to have salaries simply reduced so that they do not share in the growth of the sport. The high revenue teams need to step up to help the lower revenue clubs as well.


Source:
http://nhlpa.com/new...myths-vs.-facts


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWQs3O_IDas


EDIT: Poll added.

Edited by STiBlammo, 04 September 2012 - 10:48 PM.

  • 3

Posted Image


#2 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,677 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:17 PM

So I still don't get it. Is there going to be a lockout or not.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:21 PM

Was this written by Fehr's mother? So incredibly one sided! The players accepted a cap of $39 million 7 years ago and now this article makes it sound like an offer of a cap of $58 million is an outrageous insult.
  • 4

#4 The Sedin's 6th Sense

The Sedin's 6th Sense

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,431 posts
  • Joined: 07-December 11

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:25 PM

Was this written by Fehr's mother? So incredibly one sided! The players accepted a cap of $39 million 7 years ago and now this article makes it sound like an offer of a cap of $58 million is an outrageous insult.


First 2 sentences lol
  • 0

Posted Image




"You know what my favourite Super Bowl is? The next one."

- Tom Brady


#5 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:30 PM

So I still don't get it. Is there going to be a lockout or not.


We don't know for sure, until it happens. What we do know is that if a lockout does happen, it will solely be the decision of the league. If it were the players deciding this, it would be a strike.
  • 0

Posted Image


#6 Kassian

Kassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 11

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:33 PM

So I still don't get it. Is there going to be a lockout or not.


We'll only officially know by the 15th but the way Bettman is negotiating, it sounds like a lockout is inevitable.
  • 0

Posted Image


#7 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 04 September 2012 - 10:37 PM

Was this written by Fehr's mother? So incredibly one sided! The players accepted a cap of $39 million 7 years ago and now this article makes it sound like an offer of a cap of $58 million is an outrageous insult.


Just saying its one-sided doesn't make it one-sided. Proving it is one-sided requires information to back up the statement. That information doesn't include sarcastic statements about who the author might be.

I would personally find it insulting if my employer offered, and entered into, a contract with me for one amount, then required me to take a 24% pay cut to remain employed. And then 5~7, or so, years later, they required me to take another 24% pay cut to continue to remain employed.

Edited by STiBlammo, 04 September 2012 - 10:40 PM.

  • 3

Posted Image


#8 Jägermeister

Jägermeister

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,376 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 04 September 2012 - 11:15 PM

Well this wasn't biased at all...
It might be mostly the owners fault, but the NHLPA is also to blame.
  • 0
Posted Image

#9 Samuel Påhlsson

Samuel Påhlsson

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 646 posts
  • Joined: 29-February 12

Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:22 AM

"Player Rights."

That's the punch line.
  • 0
Posted Image

#10 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 05 September 2012 - 01:29 AM

Well this wasn't biased at all...
It might be mostly the owners fault, but the NHLPA is also to blame.


Why? The NHLPA is just a union, it isn't active in the day to day runnings of the teams or the league. The current CBA is the owners' doing as is everything since that negotiation. Inflated contracts, long terms, etc didn't have to be handed out to players. But owners acted like they had more money to throw around than they had, now they're freaking out and want more.

Was this written by Fehr's mother? So incredibly one sided! The players accepted a cap of $39 million 7 years ago and now this article makes it sound like an offer of a cap of $58 million is an outrageous insult.


That's great until you do the math and see that the NHL's latest offer is less than 50/50 once HHR is redefined. The players have said they'll take less of the revenue year over year for 3 years. But they know the league is growing and that the NHL is full of it when they say they need a reduction in spending now as if it's an emergency.

This reeks of the owners throwing a temper tantrum in the ice cream aisle. There's no reason to insist they get a big spending break by Sept 15 rather than a modest reduction in spending over the next few years. They're arguing against themselves 7 years ago. It was their own idea to have a cap tied to revenues. They took money from the players that they had already promised them in contracts. Try telling your cell phone company that you no longer like the contract you signed and insist they reduce your rates significantly. The only reason the players haven't threatened a strike is because they're the ones who actually enjoy hockey.
  • 3

#11 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 04:13 AM

Just saying its one-sided doesn't make it one-sided. Proving it is one-sided requires information to back up the statement. That information doesn't include sarcastic statements about who the author might be.

I would personally find it insulting if my employer offered, and entered into, a contract with me for one amount, then required me to take a 24% pay cut to remain employed. And then 5~7, or so, years later, they required me to take another 24% pay cut to continue to remain employed.


As there is nothing in there from the owners/Bettman explaining their stance it is most certainly one sided. The players side.
  • 1
Posted Image

#12 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:14 AM

Are any of the NYR going to help the owner pay the 997 million dollar upgrade to MSG?

How come they aren't going too? Oh, that's right! When's it's time to pay for upgrades, new seating, new parking = more income, the players don't even bat an eye.

The owners own the team. I am 100% on the owners side.

I'd like to see the players take a 50% rollback.
  • 1

#13 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:18 AM

Why? The NHLPA is just a union, it isn't active in the day to day runnings of the teams or the league. The current CBA is the owners' doing as is everything since that negotiation. Inflated contracts, long terms, etc didn't have to be handed out to players. But owners acted like they had more money to throw around than they had, now they're freaking out and want more.



That's great until you do the math and see that the NHL's latest offer is less than 50/50 once HHR is redefined. The players have said they'll take less of the revenue year over year for 3 years. But they know the league is growing and that the NHL is full of it when they say they need a reduction in spending now as if it's an emergency.

This reeks of the owners throwing a temper tantrum in the ice cream aisle. There's no reason to insist they get a big spending break by Sept 15 rather than a modest reduction in spending over the next few years. They're arguing against themselves 7 years ago. It was their own idea to have a cap tied to revenues. They took money from the players that they had already promised them in contracts. Try telling your cell phone company that you no longer like the contract you signed and insist they reduce your rates significantly. The only reason the players haven't threatened a strike is because they're the ones who actually enjoy hockey.


When it comes to a rollback a deadline leading to a lockout is typically the only way to get it. Unions typically only strike when going after an increase. The NHLPA knows they will have to give some concessions. So of course they're offering to continue under the current deal. That way they can drag their feet and continue to collect their current higher salaries as long as possible.

It's easy to say the owners are their own worst enemy. But the truth is it's the rich owners that are the enemy. Including our own. It's the "have teams" that look for ways to circumvent the cap. The Canucks are a "have" team that would have to revenue share. So they build contracts with front loading (Luongo) or large signing bonuses (Bieksa), increase the scouting staff, hire a sleep consultant and so on to reduce team profits. Which of course means they don't have to share as much revenue with poorer teams

The bottom line is both sides are right and wrong. The owners do need to come up with a better method of revenue sharing to ensure the rich teams help the poor ones. Salaries are right back to where they were before the last lockout. Which isn't good news for the poorer teams. All the money shouldn't have to come out of the owners pockets either which means rollbacks. Contracts need to have length and structure restrictions to cut off the richer owners creative compensation packages that screw the other owners.

Unfortunately it's human nature to be more concerned about what's going into your own pocket than what's for the greater good. If both sides see reason a fair deal can be made.
  • 4
Posted Image

#14 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:20 AM

It's only a matter of time before an owner of a "richer" team speaks up. The Canucks, Leafs, Rangers and Canadiens of the world are going to get tired of throwing away money every couple of years. Bettman has done a lot of good for the league but it's also locked out twice and possibly a third time. For me, that's 3 times too many.
  • 0
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

View Postdajusta, on 27 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.

Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#15 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 05:21 AM

When it comes to a rollback a deadline leading to a lockout is typically the only way to get it. Unions typically only strike when going after an increase. The NHLPA knows they will have to give some concessions. So of course they're offering to continue under the current deal. That way they can drag their feet and continue to collect their current higher salaries as long as possible.

It's easy to say the owners are their own worst enemy. But the truth is it's the rich owners that are the enemy. Including our own. It's the "have teams" that look for ways to circumvent the cap. The Canucks are a "have" team that would have to revenue share. So they build contracts with front loading (Luongo) or large signing bonuses (Bieksa), increase the scouting staff, hire a sleep consultant and so on to reduce team profits. Which of course means they don't have to share as much revenue with poorer teams

The bottom line is both sides are right and wrong. The owners do need to come up with a better method of revenue sharing to ensure the rich teams help the poor ones. Salaries are right back to where they were before the last lockout. Which isn't good news for the poorer teams. All the money shouldn't have to come out of the owners pockets either which means rollbacks. Contracts need to have length and structure restrictions to cut off the richer owners creative compensation packages that screw the other owners.

Unfortunately it's human nature to be more concerned about what's going into your own pocket than what's for the greater good. If both sides see reason a fair deal can be made.


The salary cap is going up because of a rise in revenues.
  • 0
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

View Postdajusta, on 27 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.

Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#16 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,953 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 05 September 2012 - 06:46 AM

I want NHL hockey as much as the next guy but that video is hilariously dramatic. Makes it sound like we're in the Great Depression, for crying out loud. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of millionaires gliding around on blades on ice, chasing a round piece of rubber with curved sticks.

#firstworldproblems

Edited by Jai604, 05 September 2012 - 06:46 AM.

  • 0

Posted ImagePosted Image

RIP LB RR PD


#17 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:34 AM

As there is nothing in there from the owners/Bettman explaining their stance it is most certainly one sided. The players side.


As there is nothing in there from the owners/Bettman explaining their stance it is most certainly one sided. The players side.


There are several quotes from Bettman in the article. Unfortunately, he took the same approach...not backing up his statements. He goes on record saying things like "revenue sharing is a non-issue," and doesn't expand at all. The PA can at least use other leagues as examples; the NBA, NFL and MLB, all have extensive, well documented, revenue sharing programs.

Bettman not only doesn't explain why revenue sharing is not an issue, but goes as far as manipulating the actual definition of revenue.

Bettman essentially says, "Ok, you don't want a 24% reduction in the overall revenue share? That's fine, you can keep the same percentage, but we've decided that what we declare as total revenue is 24% less than before, and we keep the rest."

I don't just see that as insulting in the sense that they would be taking repeated cuts from the same owners the lured them in with massive contracts. I also see it as insulting because Bettman is approaching the negotiations as though the players are stupid, and can't do simple math.
  • 4

Posted Image


#18 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:38 AM

The salary cap is going up because of a rise in revenues.


Part of the NHL's newest proposal is that the cap is no longer tied to revenue, therefore making it so the players' salaries don't increase as revenue is expected to increase.
  • 0

Posted Image


#19 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 07:46 AM

I want NHL hockey as much as the next guy but that video is hilariously dramatic. Makes it sound like we're in the Great Depression, for crying out loud. At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of millionaires gliding around on blades on ice, chasing a round piece of rubber with curved sticks.

#firstworldproblems


The video is obviously meant to be inspiring. If it being a first world problem is of concern to you, why don't you go join or start a forum to support Haiti or the cause of your choice?

Hockey is a great point of pride and patriotism for me, and thousands of other Canadians. To me, and those thousands, jeopardizing regular hockey at the highest level is a pretty important issue.

Edited by STiBlammo, 05 September 2012 - 07:49 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#20 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,964 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:03 AM

Are any of the NYR going to help the owner pay the 997 million dollar upgrade to MSG?

How come they aren't going too? Oh, that's right! When's it's time to pay for upgrades, new seating, new parking = more income, the players don't even bat an eye.

The owners own the team. I am 100% on the owners side.

I'd like to see the players take a 50% rollback.


After tax exemptions for the "cost of doing business" coupled with the large injection into the local economy creating lots of jobs to do the upgrades, all on top of general improvement to fan experience, I'm willing to bet the owners see a lasting benefit. That is, after all, why any company would do upgrades...to grow their business and increase revenues.

Edited by STiBlammo, 05 September 2012 - 08:05 AM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#21 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,577 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

If the owners want to spend less money on players, why don't they just spend less money on players. Don't throw around ridiculous contracts.
  • 1

#22 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,946 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

There is a term for what this article really is...propaganda. I have no doubt Bettman is an insufferable douche that is going to be a major cause of the next lockout but this is just an awful showing by the NHLPA to garner support. Might as well carry signs saying "we're the good guy...they kill puppies."

Having said that though there is still some really good information in this article.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 05 September 2012 - 08:28 AM.

  • 1
Posted Image
Posted Image

#23 thad

thad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,915 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 05 September 2012 - 08:46 AM

Calling that fact or myth is as dumb as fox news saying they're "fair and balanced"
  • 1

#24 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:18 AM

Why? The NHLPA is just a union, it isn't active in the day to day runnings of the teams or the league. The current CBA is the owners' doing as is everything since that negotiation. Inflated contracts, long terms, etc didn't have to be handed out to players. But owners acted like they had more money to throw around than they had, now they're freaking out and want more.

So, knowing the reasoning for the addition of the cap and the salary rollbacks when the last CBA was put in place, would you say:
A ) The players willingly signed exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to the spirit of the CBA, or
B ) The players were forced to sign exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to spirit of the CBA.

Certainly the owners have the lion's share, but if the NHLPA thought top players getting signed to crazy deals (particularly recent deals like Parise, Suter and Weber) would be good for the players as a whole, then they have their own responsibility in this mess. Those massive deals aren't helping the lower players the NHLPA is meant to protect.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#25 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

lol at "Fact: Why?"


But here's a cold hard fact for the PA to swallow: The NHL can/will lockout the players and win this battle 'because they can.' There doesn't even have to be a good reason to do it other than because they can win. All the players can do is complain about it, but in the end it's still likely gonna happen.

Let's just hope an entire season isn't lost due to owner arrogance. Prediction: Jan 1st season start.
  • 0
Posted Image

#26 SukhKular

SukhKular

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

Part of the NHL's newest proposal is that the cap is no longer tied to revenue, therefore making it so the players' salaries don't increase as revenue is expected to increase.


This is why I find it hard to side with the owners.
  • 1
I'm saying Aladeen a lot because http://forum.canucks...dpost__10922428

View Postdajusta, on 27 March 2012 - 12:28 PM, said:

I bet when Schneider turns 38, he will have broken all of Luongo's records.

Posted Image

General Manager of Buffalo Sabres; CDC Omega League; CM Connected; NHL 13; [[[[PS3]]]]

#27 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,428 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:30 AM

The thing is, even if we whole-heartedly supported the players here, so what? It changes nothing.

We've already proven we'll come back to the game even after an entire season and playoffs is lost. And the NHL has already seen other leagues fail when there is a season-long lockout.

The owners are holding all the cards, but the players will still get plenty rich. So i'm siding with nobody. I could care less just how rich these people are getting. Let's just get back to the game fixing and bs off-and-on-ice drama please.
  • 2
Posted Image

#28 filthycanuck

filthycanuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,173 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 09

Posted 05 September 2012 - 10:28 AM

So, knowing the reasoning for the addition of the cap and the salary rollbacks when the last CBA was put in place, would you say:
A ) The players willingly signed exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to the spirit of the CBA, or
B ) The players were forced to sign exorbitant deals clearly contradictory to spirit of the CBA.

Certainly the owners have the lion's share, but if the NHLPA thought top players getting signed to crazy deals (particularly recent deals like Parise, Suter and Weber) would be good for the players as a whole, then they have their own responsibility in this mess. Those massive deals aren't helping the lower players the NHLPA is meant to protect.


It has nothing to do what the NHLPA thinks of Parise, Suter etc. whatever, all those guys that signed long term contracts have one thing in mind, their own well being and their families. The idea of getting guaranteed money for that length of time is too attractive to just thinking "hey im gonna make a mess of the CBA" This is all on the owners and their ridiculous ways to circumvent the camp.

It is noted that when Luongo was in contract negotiations with the Canucks, Roberto was expecting a deal about 8 years in length and the Gillis gave him 12 years which suprised him. The 12 years was done to make the salary cap lower, not in terms of believing he'll be capable to play in a high level until hes 40. You don't just dole out 12 year 10 year contracts without an owners approval
  • 0

#29 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,706 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 12:25 PM

There are several quotes from Bettman in the article. Unfortunately, he took the same approach...not backing up his statements. He goes on record saying things like "revenue sharing is a non-issue," and doesn't expand at all. The PA can at least use other leagues as examples; the NBA, NFL and MLB, all have extensive, well documented, revenue sharing programs.

Bettman not only doesn't explain why revenue sharing is not an issue, but goes as far as manipulating the actual definition of revenue.

Bettman essentially says, "Ok, you don't want a 24% reduction in the overall revenue share? That's fine, you can keep the same percentage, but we've decided that what we declare as total revenue is 24% less than before, and we keep the rest."

I don't just see that as insulting in the sense that they would be taking repeated cuts from the same owners the lured them in with massive contracts. I also see it as insulting because Bettman is approaching the negotiations as though the players are stupid, and can't do simple math.


Selective quotes isn't representing both sides of a story. This is nothing but union propaganda. Is a complete picture of both sides? No it isn't. It the NHLPA attempting to make themselves look like victims that are negotiating in good faith. It really is only one side. Just as Bettman does in his.
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,054 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 05 September 2012 - 12:52 PM

It has nothing to do what the NHLPA thinks of Parise, Suter etc. whatever, all those guys that signed long term contracts have one thing in mind, their own well being and their families. The idea of getting guaranteed money for that length of time is too attractive to just thinking "hey im gonna make a mess of the CBA" This is all on the owners and their ridiculous ways to circumvent the camp.

It is noted that when Luongo was in contract negotiations with the Canucks, Roberto was expecting a deal about 8 years in length and the Gillis gave him 12 years which suprised him. The 12 years was done to make the salary cap lower, not in terms of believing he'll be capable to play in a high level until hes 40. You don't just dole out 12 year 10 year contracts without an owners approval

Tell that to the guys who are taking less because the superstars are taking up a large percentage of the cap space and teams - particularly teams that don't spend to the cap but want to retain their superstars - have to cut back on other player's salaries.

Are the players trying to earn as much as they can? Yes. Are they doing it to directly circumvent the cap? Not really. Are they aware that it could be seen that way and have impacts on future CBA negotiations? Of course.

Remember, the NHLPA is a union, and a union is formed to protect all of it's members not just the highest earning ones. Players (and their agents) are aware of the ramifications yet they still work at playing teams against each other to drive up what they can earn regardless of their actual value, and they would rather take the money in many cases rather than sign a contract they can live up to.

Just because an owner offers something doesn't mean the player should accept - look at Wade Redden and how it's affected his NHL career.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.