canucksnihilist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah). Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure. Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here. btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals! Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanj Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah). Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure. Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here. btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals! Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I've read enough BS from Poetica and tons of other people here (owners are like spoiled rich kids, blah blah blah). Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure. Else you have an NBA style league, where only a few rich teams can have a chance at winning. Nobody wants that. So the way around it is to make sure that there is proper revenue sharing, between the owners and players, and between the teams. All sides want the same thing here. btw: it works. Can you imagine Phoenix being competitive in the old days? They made it to the conference finals! Only issue now is contractual, from what I've read. The $ has been sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 ... I've got some lunar oceanfront land to sell ya! ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 That is one Doomsday Scenario DN...............I am too old and love hockey too much to think people would treat fans with such derision. If there was any truth in that and I'm not saying there isn't these people would be far better employed sorting the weaker/struggling teams out instead of kicking the fans in the goolies. I haven't read all ........or nearly all of this thread and it's not easy keeping up over here in Scotland but are we likely to get a part season by Christmas? What's your gut feeling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I'm of the the thinking that the limit on contract length and % variance just limits the back loaded contracts in the spirit of parity and not cheating the cap. You could call it limiting the players rights, or limiting the competition, or restricting the owners, but its also keeping parity. The players will still get their money and 50/50 either way. Most of the owners probably don't even care about this, this is probably more of a Bettman thing and supported by a minority of owners. In fact, I think when the players sit down and think this over carefully, it probably works to their benefit (especially the veterans). No reason you couldn't get back to back 5 year contracts, with the second one worth more than the first. The poorest team in the league just resigned Doan for more, despite his age. In fact, they signed him for more because of his age and experience. Extending the UFA to 8 years and limiting arbitration might be an erosion of player rights. A well managed team would be able to retain their players most of the time, as long as the player is treated right. I'll predict league movement on these items. I'm not sure what to think on the 2 year ELC. 2 year ELC with 5 year contract limit and 8 year UFA ensures the owner gets first dibs on that third contract. So enter the Shea Weber scenario for the offer sheet in year 8. This could still be viewed as a win for the players, unless you're the player who wants to go play for your home town. Edit. I'm mostly for the players not losing their rights. I'm just saying that the owners will shoot themselves in the foot again, so maybe the players shouldn't be so worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Problem is that half the owners want to spend more (aka they sign players to these outlandishly large contracts) and half the owners can't afford to do so. So they are trying to find a way for the league to be competitive. Which is in both the owners and players best interests. No owner wants to get outspent every year and lose fans cause they can't compete. No player wants to get stuck on a team that has no chance of ever winning. It's called structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Hypothetical scenario. Suppose the Weber offer sheet is 50M over 5 years. Do you still match the offer sheet, or do you take the 4 first rounders? If you are Philly, is it worth it to give up those four firsts for a five year contract? Either way, there would be another bidding war after the 5 years is up, and that bidding war would probably be larger than 50M the second time around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You know, poetica, if you don't stop posting like that my crush on you is only going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 I have wondered about this myself, and have seen this question asked many times here in the past. Legal Look: Do Players Lose Contract Year On A Lost Season? We know that NHL players don't get paid their salaries during a lockout. From the NHL's standpoint, being in a position to deprive players of income represents pretty meaningful leverage during CBA negotiations. What represents even more leverage? Players never getting that money back - or that year. If a full season is lost to a lockout, a player loses that entire year on his contract even though no hockey is ever played. That means that a lost year does not somehow carry over to the following year. The year is gone; the money is gone. The reason goes back to how a player contract is structured (or as it's called, a Standard Player's Contract or its short form, SPC). When a player signs a contract, he agrees that each contract year is counted as a "League Year". Under the CBA, a "League Year" is defined as July 1 of one year to June 30 of the next year. So NHL players don't sign for a defined number of NHL seasons; they sign for a defined number of years that may or may not include NHL hockey. Put another way, a player is employed for a year and not a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Karlsson Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 If they don't start playing by January the league is going to lose a lot of fans. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Edit. I'm mostly for the players not losing their rights. I'm just saying that the owners will shoot themselves in the foot again, so maybe the players shouldn't be so worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 You're hired to make the brochure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I guess you guys might want to actually ADMIT the league has all the power and the NHLPA has none whatsoever. The owners are royally pissed off at Fehr and the players have made a huge mistake by hiring him. The owners do not have to do anything and its now showing. Perhaps next time the NHLPA will grow their own attorney. They will get a guy who is a hockey player, even if it was only at the AHL or even east coast league level. Get a guy who has been a hockey guy his whole life then became a professional attorney Then have that guy study and practice labor law and sports law for decades. Then , after he is ready, then have that guy walk a mile in the owners shoes, earn their respect, and THEN represent the union in negotiations. The NHLPA will have far smoother sailing having a home grown legal talent WITHIN the NHL ranks rather than bring some outsider as their hired gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Sadly, that's the truth. The problem is next time we'll all be back here, with owners swearing they need even more restrictions on players because of the actions of owners and unbridled GMs, only to find out yet again that they don't work when the very people who made the rules find ways to circumvent them but aren't held accountable for that. It's up to the people breaking the system to fix it instead of demanding others get less to fix it for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I guess you guys might want to actually ADMIT the league has all the power and the NHLPA has none whatsoever. The owners are royally pissed off at Fehr and the players have made a huge mistake by hiring him. The owners do not have to do anything and its now showing. Perhaps next time the NHLPA will grow their own attorney. They will get a guy who is a hockey player, even if it was only at the AHL or even east coast league level. Get a guy who has been a hockey guy his whole life then became a professional attorney Then have that guy study and practice labor law and sports law for decades. Then , after he is ready, then have that guy walk a mile in the owners shoes, earn their respect, and THEN represent the union in negotiations. The NHLPA will have far smoother sailing having a home grown legal talent WITHIN the NHL ranks rather than bring some outsider as their hired gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 If the players have no power, then why didn't the League stick to their initial offer of 57% for the owners and 43% for the players. You come across as a League stooge doing spin control with hyperbole. In the end it is still a partnership and I think that the owners understand that. The owners are more interested in maximizing profits and less with petty anger as you suggest. I still believe that the League intentionally stalled negotiations to save certain markets from losing money. They didn't start negotiating in earnest until after the Winter Classic was canceled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brambojoe Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The whining (sign of weakness) always preceeds the caving. Back in early fall Daly was whining about how the NHLPA hadn't made any real counter offers. The next thing that happens is "make whole" is born. Admittedly it was pretty ugly at first but has since matured into something the players can stomach. Now the players are whining. So I expect the next thing will be for the players to wave a white flag on the contracting and damage due to lockout issues. Hooray for hockey in Dec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 If the players have no power, then why didn't the League stick to their initial offer of 57% for the owners and 43% for the players. You come across as a League stooge doing spin control with hyperbole. In the end it is still a partnership and I think that the owners understand that. The owners are more interested in maximizing profits and less with petty anger as you suggest. I still believe that the League intentionally stalled negotiations to save certain markets from losing money. They didn't start negotiating in earnest until after the Winter Classic was canceled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The whining (sign of weakness) always preceeds the caving. Back in early fall Daly was whining about how the NHLPA hadn't made any real counter offers. The next thing that happens is "make whole" is born. Admittedly it was pretty ugly at first but has since matured into something the players can stomach. Now the players are whining. So I expect the next thing will be for the players to wave a white flag on the contracting and damage due to lockout issues. Hooray for hockey in Dec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.