Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

-Vintage Canuck-

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread

6,228 posts in this topic

So the players were good with the make whole and the 50-50 split, correct?

Pretty much the only thing they didn't accept last time was the CBA length, term limits, and contract variance I believe. The NHL hasn't moved on the CBA length, but they've come towards the players on term limits and variance.

This has to be enough to at least get a vote does it not?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the BTW's - notice how I didn't "judge" you for what you have said for I had no idea what your "experience" was.

Still didn't answer my overall question.

Let me put it this way - where are the record profits?

Another example.

You are the Owner of 32 restaurants.

3 of the restaurants are doing quite well, 18 are losing money and the others are barely breaking even.

The employees want more money as they claim there were record profits.

In order for you to help out those restaurants that are losing - you have 2 choices - sink more money into them or get rid of them.

On top of that, as you're in a restaurant business, there's no guarantee what you will make next year - your customers may go to another restaurant, the price of bacon is going up, power is going up, and you need to spend more on advertising.

Yet, because you showed a profit overall, everyone wants a piece of it - even though they don't understand the overall picture - that it is you that takes the risk, you that has to answer to inspections and government...yes...you drive a Hummer but you have to maintain customer image perception so they don't bail on you.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but the article you quoted specifically noted "year-to-year Salary variability will be limited (up or down) to no more than 10% of the value of the first year of a multi-year SPC" rather than a 10% variance year to year. You could start low, then rise to 10% above the first year's salary only to come back down at the end to a salary 10% less than the first year.

To make it as simple as possible, look at an example 3 year deal with $10M in salary the first year:

  • The best possible structure to give the player more money early on (front loaded) would be to have $10M/$11M ($10M+10%)/$9M ($10M-10%). That would give the player $21M in the first two years versus $20M if the contract was $10M/$10M/$10M even though both contracts are worth $30M total.

  • You couldn't have a salary structured as $11M/$10M/$9M as final year is more than a 10% variability from the first year.

There are more possibilities with longer term contracts ($10M/$11M/$11M/$9M/$9M/$9M/$9M for $68M total and a $9.71M cap hit), but I have a feeling we'll need more info on that one to know what's possible unless I misunderstood it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't want to get optimistic and then have my heart stomped on.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I am looking at is, this favors front loaded more than back loaded contracts (see NYI payroll). You can have 10,9,8m, but not 8,9,10m. It is based on 10% value of the *first* year as the variability.

Wouldn't it be more even and fair to have it 10% variance of the year of maximum contract value? The bell curve could have front, back or middle loaded contracts equally beneficial to all parties. Back loaded contracts like Grabner at 1,2,3,4,5m wouldn't be permitted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Schneider wins the Vezina.

Luongo wins the Hart.

Canucks vs Leafs in Finals.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cory Schneider wins the Vezina.

Luongo wins the Hart.

Canucks vs Leafs in Finals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example of 10/9/8 is more than 10% variability from year one to year three, but the premise is correct and I understand what you're getting at. A correct example would be you'd be allowed to do 10/9.5/9 but not 9/9.5/10 (10% of $10M is $1M but 10% of $9M is $900K).

The idea of having the max and min salaries be only a percentage variability from each other is a reasonable suggestion that would cover what the NHL is looking for I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example of 10/9/8 is more than 10% variability from year one to year three, but the premise is correct and I understand what you're getting at. A correct example would be you'd be allowed to do 10/9.5/9 but not 9/9.5/10 (10% of $10M is $1M but 10% of $9M is $900K).

The idea of having the max and min salaries be only a percentage variability from each other is a reasonable suggestion that would cover what the NHL is looking for I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Take 10% of the first year of the contract. You can go up or down each year by that maximum dollar amount. So, you can do 10,9,8m or 8,8.8, 9.6m in reverse, but not 8,9,10m. The max variance between any years is 10% of year one. Not 10% variance across the entire contract

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm almost positive that's not how it works. Take 10% of the first year of the contract. You can go up or down each year by that maximum dollar amount. So, you can do 10,9,8m or 8,8.8, 9.6m in reverse, but not 8,9,10m. The max variance between any years is 10% of year one. Not 10% variance across the entire contract

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read it as 10% up or down from the first years total money. ERgo:

8 million in year one then has a max in any given year of 8,800,000 and a minimum in any given year of 7,200,000

So as long as year one is 8m then year two can be 8.8m and the final year can be 7.2million. Lets pretend this is for a 3 year deal: the final product would be 24m but if its for say the max limit of 6 years: 8 - 8.8 to front load the first two years at 16.8million, the last four years at 7.2 each would make the cap hit 7.6million even though the player is getting a paycheck worth 8.8million in year two of the deal. That second year the cap hit is 1.2million below what the player is actually being paid.

So, I think that the idea of 10% variance from the first year, in essence gives the GM 20% wiggle room on contracts which is better than nothing, while still gutting the ridiculous front loaded 10 year deals. I am all for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Fehr telling the players to hold off on this offer, because there might be one more before the drop dead date.

I'd understand that decision too, because he's been right about the league every time. A lot of people seem to think the last offer should have went to vote but Fehr said no, I guess anticipating there is at least one better offer to come. That turned out to be the right move because had the offer went to vote, it might have passed and the players would have settled for a lousier offer than they could have gotten. His job is to get the players' the best offer possible so he has to prevent the players from getting enticed by the NHL's negotiating tactics (give them so many crappy offers so their next offer seems like a must have).

Hopefully the league will allow this offer to be negotiable though and all of that becomes a moot point.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collection of Tweets from Kuklas Korner....

Lightning's Crombeen, a member of union negotiating committee, said NHL's offer is ":encouraging that they took some steps toward us."

— Damian Cristodero (@LightningTimes) December 29, 2012

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL's deal will be take it or leave it, therefore there likely won't be a season.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the second half of Crombeen's quote, if the owners are going to do another 'take it or leave it' then whatever progress they attempted on their recent proposal would be lost. It's not negotiating to force the other side to settle, if anything the league should be optimistic that the players want a conference call.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NHL's deal will be take it or leave it, therefore there likely won't be a season.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose this is one of those "clarification" things to be discovered over the next couple days. I read it the same as you guys at first, but realized it is worded 10% year to year, but that first year defines the amount.

James Mirtle@mirtle

Okay, my mistake - the league says new proposal on variance would allow a contract to go from $10-million to $4-million over seven years.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.