gizmo2337 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 (5) embraced Union's request to allow retained salary in trades subject to upwardly revised parameters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Why? If the range stays a fixed percentage, say 33%, then how could you see this being a potential problem down the line? It's more rational than to have the cap go from 39 mil to 56 mil and the range to stay the same, as it had under the old CBA, no? Doesn't that just make sense? I'm failing to see what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I don't think the players yet understand how much of a win this one point could be. If this goes down, I expect this one point to be reason for "the next lockout". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 It can be abused to defeat parity. Widens the gap between the rich and poor teams. With the poor teams in the majority, we have a lockout. See picture below and guess where the last lockout occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman says both sides are "still far apart": NEW YORK, N.Y. - The NHL and NHL Players' Association finally seem to be speaking the same language, but they still have a gap to bridge in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement. The union tabled a comprehensive proposal Wednesday that generated a tepid response from the league. However, commissioner Gary Bettman acknowledged the six-page offer was a step in the right direction and the document appeared to offer a path forward in talks, with the sides now envisioning the same type of economic system. "There was some movement in our direction and it was appreciated," said Bettman. "We're still far apart. But hopefully there's some momentum so we can bring this to a conclusion." The union proposed a 50-50 split of revenues during the five-year deal along with $393 million in deferred make whole payments throughout the agreement. Two weeks ago, the league offered $211 million and a 50-50 split. NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr acknowledged that his constituents are anxious to end the lockout and indicated that the new offer is "about as good" as the players are willing to make. "(The players) are suffering right along with the fans," said Fehr. "We made an enormous move in the owners direction to try and end it — at least as of today that hasn't been successful." Until now, the union had been pushing for a system that would see players paid a fixed amount of revenue each season rather than receiving a percentage of it. However, the new offer included some safeguards to ensure they'd be protected in the event league revenues stalled, including a clause that states the players' share can't drop from year to year. "The players are making enormous concessions to the owners and we want some protection on the downside," said Fehr. There is also ground still to cover on contract issues. The new NHLPA offer included a rule that would punish teams who sign players to long-term, back-diving contracts — something the league has identified as an important issue. It also called for players making more than $1-million in the minors to have their salary count against the salary cap. However, the union chose not adopt the NHL's proposed changes to unrestricted free agency, entry-level deals and salary arbitration, among other things. Some of those issues were discussed when the league and NHLPA reconvened Wednesday after the NHL had a chance to study the offer. "We went through their proposal point by point," said Bettman. "We talked about the things that were agreeable, we talked about the things that we could modify, we talked about the things that we had no more room to move on and explained our proposal on each of those elements." With the lockout into its 10th week, the sides are attempting to reach a deal that would see a shortened schedule played this season. The labour dispute has damaged the sport's business, with Bettman saying the league is losing between $18 and $20 million every day of the labour dispute. The commissioner indicated that he was surprised they hadn't already been able to reach an agreement. "We made a proposal (in October) to save an 82-game season and frankly we're all mystified as to why we're not playing in light of that offer and in light of the fact that the players are losing as a group between $8 and $10 million a day," said Bettman. "We could have been playing, we could have been continuing the momentum this game had on an offer and an agreement that was long term and fair. "So there's a lot about this process that one could scratch their head about." The sides are expected to touch base on Friday, but no further meetings have been scheduled. http://www.thescore....still-far-apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Ok you're going to have to elaborate if you understand the legal language better than us. Please, elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I don't fully understand how the trading of cap space works as proposed, so take it with a grain of salt. If it means the poor teams can retain some cap and trade a player to a contender, then parity is out the window. Previously, there was a hard upper cap, but if you can trade cap space, then you can really cheat, especially at the deadline. Contenders gain more advantage, non-contenders can save even more money. Sounds almost like a soft cap doesn't it? Trend seems to be cap limit teams exploit the max, cap min teams exploit the minimum. I wouldn't expect that to change much over the course of next CBA. Edit. The money doesn't change. Just the parity and system abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stexx Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 $182 million?? Many posters have posted the PA proposal on this thread still people refuse to read and understand the PA's proposal. They just go by a few Fehr talking points. If it was $182 million the deal would be signed right away. Attached is a copy of Fehr's letter to agents. The PA wants guaranteed $'s going forward. Not work off actual HRR but the player's share to be guaranteed to the amount of last year's share. The NHL can not and will not ever agree to this. The union is proposing to decouple from HRR %. http://espn.go.com/b...ffer-to-the-nhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Therefore, teams that scout, draft and develop well will be able to retool faster than in previous years. If you are out of the race anyway then it's better to get ready for the next one. This seems like it will help the parity argument rather than requiring teams to undergo prolonged rebuilding stages. This should help generate excitement and interest for the cap dumping teams for each upcoming training camp. Couple this with the earlier FA period before the draft and I see this as a win-win especially as it means the teams actually competing for the Cup will be loaded with better players, producing a better quality of Stanley Cup playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space. I mean they will become a team solely comprised of young players on cheap contracts while unloading anyone making more than 3 mil. This would also hurt teams like the Preds, as they continue to draft and develop well only to lose players to free agency. When you factor in them being competitive in the last couple years but being unable to take on additional cap, they would either barely scrape the playoffs or have to sell what they have and build for the future. I guess in short, what I'm trying to say is guys like Tavares will inevitably take on bigger deals only to be moved while their cap hit stays on their previous team. I liked the old system, I could understand it. Previously you could judge a trade based on the salary being traded, the age of the players being moved, and their relative success. Now a player can be moved because his host team wants the luxury of his cap hit to make league minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space. I mean they will become a team solely comprised of young players on cheap contracts while unloading anyone making more than 3 mil. This would also hurt teams like the Preds, as they continue to draft and develop well only to lose players to free agency. When you factor in them being competitive in the last couple years but being unable to take on additional cap, they would either barely scrape the playoffs or have to sell what they have and build for the future. I guess in short, what I'm trying to say is guys like Tavares will inevitably take on bigger deals only to be moved while their cap hit stays on their previous team. I liked the old system, I could understand it. Previously you could judge a trade based on the salary being traded, the age of the players being moved, and their relative success. Now a player can be moved because his host team wants the luxury of his cap hit to make league minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alt kilgore Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The Whitecaps season is over... The Lion's season is over.... VAN SPORTS FANS ARE GETTING ANTSY IT'S TIME TO GET SERIOUS........GET ER DONE!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 The league is willing to accept a delinked HRR, with small annual increases ... If the League and the PA can agree on an economic starting point with a minimal increase of 1.75% per annum then the teams stand to reap a large windfall if they can keep the total HRR growing by 5-7% as they must feel confident in their ability to do. This would leave the players share significantly less than 50% by the end of the CBA though the players will never see their actual real dollar amount fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 "The Union has had our best economic proposal, and that was in the context of playing an 82 game season. That proposal was semerally rejected, and any expectation that the offer is going to get better as time goes on is not realistic." - Gary Bettman I'm not sure how he expects to get a deal done, if he isn't willing to move any closer. and even that deal was unfair for the players and greatly favoured the owners. I'm not sure the mindset of the Comish and the owners right now, he's killing our game/his bussniess and he isn't willing to move enough to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I would really like to see revenue sharing based on percentage. I don't think that fixed number fixes much other than the next couple years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I find it funny how the NHL acts like it knows what's best for the game, even though all the problems that exist in the NHL today were created by the owners... They're so quick to dismiss NHLPA ideas of how to fix the league, as if these guys are idiots. When the reality is, the majority of the owners have no idea how to run the NHL or a team, as is shown by their broken business model. I don't even understand what they're doing right now. They keep asking for the union to submit proposals, even though they know they're going to reject them. The only way they'll accept one is if it's pretty much exactly what they're asking for. So pretty much this whole thing has been a sham, where they're ultimately just waiting for the union to completely cave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively. When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract. So any economic damage is being caused solely by the league. Even by talking about mounting damages to the game/league... Bettman is conceding that they would be better off financially to be playing right now. If that wasn't the case there couldn't be any damages. That is unlike the previous work stoppage when more than half the teams were better off by keeping their doors shut rather than playing games. It is becoming clear that Bettman promised certain fairly dramatic things to the owners... and he is under pressure to keep those promises. Instead of taking a smaller win, he feels that doubling down is the best strategy. It is a vicious circle I have seen behind the scenes in negotiations. The longer it goes and the more it costs, the more pressure to get an even better deal in order to make up for those increasing losses and to make it seem worthwhile to have done through the labour strife in the first place. The league clearly has a very specific number in mind for what they want their savings to be. They also still feel that they can get it. They also feel in control of the process enough that they can simply start the season when they think they have wrung out enough or that the math for losses starts outweighing what they can get at the table. If I were Fehr, I would leverage the anger from today that the players have and deliver an ultimatum to the league to start putting the pressure onto them. They simply have to say that the NHLPA will continue to negotiate until 01 December, after which time they will effectively cancel the season and be negotiating for the 2013-2014 season. This allows their membership to seek employment elsewhere without having to worry about being obligated under IIHF rules to return to the NHL if a deal gets done this season. It also allows them to make plans for things like NHLPA mini-tours of the big hockey markets where they put on games/tournament similar to the Bieksa's buddies games on a regular basis (say weekly in each major market).... maybe giving half the proceeds to charity and half to the players. Nothing would freak out owners with big continuing overhead costs more than seeing other arenas filled with happy fans enjoying themselves. In this scenario you can also guarantee that broadcasters would jump on board to broadcast many of those games. Players are playing and getting paid some, fans are seeing hockey, broadcasters are getting revenue... and the owners are left on the sidelines. All of a sudden you diverge "the game of hockey" from "the NHL". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I see that but what we are talking about are going to be mostly late season moves for pending FAs. That point won't change.The teams will still have to hit a minimum floor to start the season.I don't think you'll see the Isles or anyone else shipping out cap space on Day 1 of the season. Hopefully they put a mechanism in place to avoid that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 What annoys me the most is that Bettman thinks we are stupid. He makes comments talking about how the players are responsible for the damage to the game that is happening right now. The indisputable fact (and I have plenty labour relations/arbitration experience to know this) is that locking out employees is almost never done unless the employees are engaging in some sort of partial strike/work stoppage (rotating strikes, work to rule, etc) that makes it too difficult to continue running the business effectively. When you are actually wanting a deal, you simply keep working under the same agreement that has expired as you negotiate. That is standard LR practice. I know of many cases where they continue working a couple years without a new contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think parity goes out the window if a team like NYI can trade cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.