Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 You think the lockout has given teams exposure ? I think with the frequency of the NHL owners to show or in this case claim such financial instability and poor ability to run there multi billion dollar industry has finally started to really drive people away . The last lockout the consensus was people agreed a salary cap was need and stuck it out through a full season cancellation cause when the nhl came back it also came back with new rule changes with improved hockey too But this time its different , from what i have seen and read this time people have a much different opinion then the previous lockout situation The NHL has takin fans for granted and figured after seeing the NBA and NFL get a 50/50 deal with there players they were going to do the same with out any ramifications but what they did not consider that this is the 3rd time that huge portions or complete seasons have now been lost and when you keep doing this people start to find other things to spend there money on and interest them self with . I for one have been a fan of the NHL for 25 yrs and been through all of Bettmans labor issues and find myself in this situation this time around were things just seem different and just dont really care and im not sure if they come back if my interest will be the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 They aren't as close as you would think. I can see the players pushing back trying to get the hard cap for next season back up to 63-65m, as signing onto this current offer would mean 67m in cap dumped by the 16 teams currently over the 60m mark. It would be unprecedented for a union to sign an agreement that inevitably leaves a number of it's members without a job. On top of that, the NHL doesn't even want to pay the contracts of these potential buyouts, so as a player would you agree to pay for players that have stopped trying? On face value the offer doesn't look so bad, but when you factor in the small things that the NHL is trying to sneak in, namely the players paying for owner made amnesty-buyouts, the hard cap of 60m which leads to 67m dumped as of next year, and then the overall value of the contracts being bought out - which could be in the vicinity of 100-120m over the length of their contracts. Add to this the new proposals under escrow making the players pay the full pension, Combine all this with the already established player issues of a 10 year CBA, a 6 year contract limit (up from 5 isn't a huge deal), as well 10% max variance (which may have been the biggest concession up from 5%), and the players don't exactly win any particular category. I can't imagine the players would be eager to sign this particular offer, not with everything they've given up. The only real hope of a season in my opinion is for the owners to enable discussions on their current proposal, a 'take it or leave it' will simply drive the players away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The new CBA better not end in 2021...2022 is an olympic hockey year and that is important to us fans not to have messed up by labour disputes. I would like to see the new CBA go through the season in which the 2022 olympic hockey will take place, or end a full season before it. so at the end of 21/22 at the earliest... As a fan i hope that its a ten year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 It would be unprecedented for a union to sign an agreement that inevitably leaves a number of it's members without a job. On top of that, the NHL doesn't even want to pay the contracts of these potential buyouts, so as a player would you agree to pay for players that have stopped trying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 According to Willie Mitchell if the team decides to buy out a contract, the money would come out of the players 50/50 revenue portion. That's a concession on the owners side? I don't think so ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted December 29, 2012 Author Share Posted December 29, 2012 @michaelgrange I am told #NHLPA #NHL calls are done for the day; likely to resume in person in NYC Sunday ... Counter offer may get pushed to Monday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Yep. These are the little things that the NHL tries to sneak in there to try and make it look like a better deal. They never actually make concessions, at least not without taking money from the players in another area. The NHL is full of spin doctors, with Bettman being the biggest one of them all. The NHLPA needs to force the NHL to give a real concession, which will likely be one more year on term limits, and maybe 15% variance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 @DarrenDreger: Some involved in info discussions will be via conf call, otherwise face to face. Could lead to bargaining on Sunday. No guarantee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juskay Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 According to Willie Mitchell if the team decides to buy out a contract, the money would come out of the players 50/50 revenue portion. That's a concession on the owners side? I don't think so ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 The owners still have to pay the buyouts..they are buying them out, they owe it. What they want is for the buyout to count against the cap in some capacity, lets say in full, as i think that is the offer....no player is paying the salary of the bought out player... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 Wille is correct. Let me attempt some math. Assume each team buys out one player who has 20 million remaining on his contract. 30 teams times 20million each is 600 million dollars. Spread out that 600 million over ten years of the new CBA deal = 60 million per year that the players will lose from their 50/50 revenue split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 All 30 teams buying out players with 20 million remaining on their contracts? That's never going to happen. Most GM's are more responsible than that, and would likely only buy out a player if they really aren't performing and they can't get anything back in a trade. Owners don't want to pay players if they're not playing for their team. So this would be an absolute last resort for GM's. Buy out's will be alot more rare than you think. It's horrible business for a team to do them and makes it less likely for other UFA's to sign with that team. I think with 7 year contract limits, buyouts will be less frequent, and if they are made, it will be the last year or two of contracts, which will probably be low amounts in most contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juskay Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 That averages around $850k taken away from each player on average via escrow... that is a huge number. Realistically there would probably only be 15-20 guys bought out, but a couple of huge ones like Luongo and Lecavalier are $85 million just between the two of them (almost $120k for each of the 720 other players). Can you imagine how pissed off you would be as a plugger with a 4 year career giving up that cash for guys who get paid top dollars anyways AND who get to re-sign again for smaller contracts on another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 It's actually 85K not 850k......But if league revenues grow at 6% no player would lose anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Kind of how the players and owners are acting in this? Do I expect the players to make concessions? Yes. Do I expect the owners to make concessions? Yes. The company I work for didn't make the profit they forecast this year - because of that, none of the employees will receive a bonus. In other words, the market is not constant so the employer can NOT guarantee how much they can share with their employees. One thing that I dislike the most about this lockout is how the fans have divided - how fans from the same team are battling each other, how fans from the same team who choose one side and resort to name calling of each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yep. These are the little things that the NHL tries to sneak in there to try and make it look like a better deal. They never actually make concessions, at least not without taking money from the players in another area. The NHL is full of spin doctors, with Bettman being the biggest one of them all. The NHLPA needs to force the NHL to give a real concession, which will likely be one more year on term limits, and maybe 15% variance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 The extra $50M the league is throwing into the revenue sharing is nothing to ignore. Basically the top 7 teams have to throw in another $7M to pizz poor teams that are losing money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juskay Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 No... it is $600,000,000 divided by 720 = $850k per player. You are just making an assumption that you can spread it out over a 10 year deal to make it not sound as bad. At best they could spread it out over the remaining years of each contract bought out... but even then, the total amount doesn't change. The growth argument has nothing to do with buyouts. Half of any growth belongs to the players under the 50/50 split to start moving back towards their current salary levels after a few years. What you are arguing is really that the players should be less than 50% as a double hit in order to pay for bad ownership decisions on signing players to bad contracts. I say again... the owners would not pay a single cent towards this buyout clause under their proposal. The entire "make whole" provision is only $250 million (plus $50 million towards pensions)... you want to throw $600 million reduction from the player share into the argument? A more reasonable buyout clause would be that each team has a one time compliance buyout where they only have to pay out 50% of the remaining salary (keep in mind the player still gets to play and sign somewhere else... if they can't earn the other 50% somewhere they don't deserve it). The 50% paid by the owner is not included in either the owner or player share of revenue. That stops other teams, players, GMs from having to pay for mistakes made by an owner who signs a bad deal. It is the cost of being dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Yea, and they're getting that money by reducing the players share to 50%. The league is not giving up nearly as much as they'd like you to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 600,000,000 divided by 10 years of the deal (as I posted) is 60,000,000 per year. Divided by 720 players is 85,000 not 850,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.