-Vintage Canuck- Posted August 28, 2012 Author Share Posted August 28, 2012 Bettman said the owners' made a "counterproposal" to the Union today. He called it "significant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boxiebrown Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You have teams that don't make the playoffs for 25 years. Plus. Washington/Montreal 30 seasons Kansas city 26 seasons Pirates 19 Blue jays 18 Baltimore 14 Seattle 10 That's ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etsen3 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 NHL fans now: "So pissed at Bettman, if there's a lockout I'll never come back. I'm DONE with the NHL" NHL fans whenever the season starts: "Soooo pumped for hockey to start again!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Can't believe people are calling others dumb and delusional but have little sense that 57/43 split is the first offer, not the final. It's called negotiations for a reason. They will negotiate and meet towards the middle. If Bettman offered a 50/50 split in his first proposal does any one think he would be able to get a 50/50? Heck No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynysterGates Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Rumours that the 2 sides aren't far apart on revenue sharing. Also that NHL offered a 3 year plan where the split for the players is 52/48, 50/50, then 48/52. Source Team 1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Habitat Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Rumours that the 2 sides aren't far apart on revenue sharing. Also that NHL offered a 3 year plan where the split for the players is 52/48, 50/50, then 48/52. Source Team 1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Rumours that the 2 sides aren't far apart on revenue sharing. Also that NHL offered a 3 year plan where the split for the players is 52/48, 50/50, then 48/52. Source Team 1040 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Habitat Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 WoW! That's huge news! These are the "core economics" that Bettman was talking about. And if that is in fact true, they may be getting closer on the main issues. They still have to settle on contract lengths though, which will take quite a while I would think since it's something the players likely don't want changed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Wel see. Bettman said today that the revenue split isn't the big deal. It's contracts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Profanity Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Can't believe people are calling others dumb and delusional but have little sense that 57/43 split is the first offer, not the final. It's called negotiations for a reason. They will negotiate and meet towards the middle. If Bettman offered a 50/50 split in his first proposal does any one think he would be able to get a 50/50? Heck No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 So what you are saying is, the owners and GMs found a loophole to break their own proposals. Now why the heck do the players have to take a pay cut to compensate the stupidity of the owners and managements!? How would you like it if your boss tells you that he is cutting your salary by 24%, despite the company is having a record high revenue and profit? And how would you like it if your boss also tells you he is cutting your salary because his brother lost a fortune in investing Nortel stocks, and he would prefer to use your money to save his brother than using his own? You are delusional. Go get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRocket18 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Gr8 post Profanity - love it!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anti-Bettman Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Darren Dreger @DarrenDreger NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Am I saying anywhere here that the players should be happy with a request for a 24% rollback?? Of course they want nothing to do with it, that is why their counteroffer was a 2% cap increase. And its not the stupidity of the owners and GMs, quite the opposite, it is their brilliance that has lead to the current problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 So at $58 M cap for next year, the league is asking for a rollback of salaries of about 17%. What do you think the NHLPA will think of that? Now let's see of the players are really serious about negotiating- they need to go to at least around minus 10% to show good faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 WoW! That's huge news! These are the "core economics" that Bettman was talking about. And if that is in fact true, they may be getting closer on the main issues. They still have to settle on contract lengths though, which will take quite a while I would think since it's something the players likely don't want changed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I am sorry, but that has to be one of the stupidest comments ever made on CDC. So the NHL wanted a hard cap to protect itself from free spending and increased player salaries in 2004 and thats what they got in 2005. General Managers and owners then undermined there own system by increasing player salaries through loop holes and the system itself. In what world is that brilliant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 So at $58 M cap for next year, the league is asking for a rollback of salaries of about 17%. What do you think the NHLPA will think of that? Now let's see of the players are really serious about negotiating- they need to go to at least around minus 10% to show good faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Nope they are not close. The definition of Hockey Related Revenue will be severely restricted in the current proposal so the split isnt 50/50 the owners still win big time as compared to the current system that is about to expire. Also for anyone that is all giddy about the possibility of revenue sharing and the fact that Bettman said they were close on revenue sharing well turns out both sides are not. This is best explained by one of the best writers in hockey Tim Pannacio http://www.hockeybuz...-Add-Up/2/46299 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 It is briliant in that they found ways to go around the cap that nobody could think of in 2004- and that is mostly through the use of very long term contracts with very low salaries for the last few years. Nobody thought of that in 2004 when they set the cap rules but Detroit was first to figure that out with the Zetterberg and Datsyuk contracts. That brilliant move undermined the achievements of 2004 and has forced another confrontation. It was a brilliant move by Detroit, followed by most other organizations with money, including the canucks. What is stupid about this recounting of history? Who says this is not what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.