ErnieVan Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 To answer your question ErnieVan it would be a rollback to players salaries, that's always been the proposal. You went on a bit of a tangent after that. The Cap decreasing from 70mil to 58 mil would mean a 17% rollback in player salaries, the Sedins would make ~4.6mil from 6.1 mil deals that they signed. The players have every right to be fuming. I still feel that the player's proposal to freeze the cap for the next 3 years is more than reasonable. The NHL predicts the cap hit to be back at that value (71.1mil) in 4 years anyway, so the difference should be a smaller issue. If the NHLPA is willing to make concessions then they should do so, but not at the expense of current player's salaries which is why their proposal was so brilliant. Decreasing HHR to 50/50 is probably the best medium, this should be a gradual process though without changing the current pay structure. I really wish the NHL side could acknowledge that the PA's side's biggest issue with the cap decreasing. Likewise, the NHLPA must acknowledge the owners want greater HHR. There's a medium - the two sides just need to find it. Informal talks began yesterday, formal meeting expected on the 10th - last ditch effort for the season to start on time. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 I didn't realize I asked a question. My point is that there is a way to avoid current CAP hits to not put a strangle hold on your team by showing that only the CAP number needs to be adjusted. The salaries aren't rolled back the amount that they get back from Escrow would be reduced meaning they make less money. But their CAP hit doesn't change, meaning teams (16) would have to move out players. I wasn't on a tangent I was trying to illustrated my point and back up my arguement. The problem is how do teams get CAP compliant without making major changes to their existing lineup. I was offering a way to get around the problem that the NHL has created by telling teams to spend to the $70M CAP then reducing it $58M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 "Nope - the proposal is salaries AND caphits would be rolled back. Same as what happened after the lockout' IIRC many players had their contracts bought out to meet the cap not had a reduction in their cap hit., but if you have link to support your thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 If I'm a player and signed a contract at x dollars and not x percent of the cap max I would sue everybody involved with reducing my pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 subsitute hockey for beer and tv and this is how i feel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Boone Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 DREGER: COMMON GROUND NEEDED TO ADVANCE CBA NEGOTIATIONS There is risk of the entire 2012-2013 NHL season being wiped out. Now that qualifies as fear mongering, but considering how entrenched both the league and the players' association are with less than 10 days until the expiration of the existing collective bargaining agreement, sources on both sides are accepting the loss of another season as a possibility. Negotiations remain in a stalemate - with no plan to resume formal talks. The NHL insists - for the health of the league - that players must be paid less. On the other side, the players' association contends that forcing players to take less doesn't solve the problems within the current system. In short, the NHL Players' Association believes a new system is required. However, negotiating an economic framework that works for both the owners and the players can't be done until both sides find some common ground. A mutually agreed upon definition of what constitutes hockey related revenue (HRR) and how certain aspects impact the overall players' share is largely the foundation for a new CBA. So in simple terms, it comes down to dollars and cents. The players are willing to give, but do so over time. And they aren't interested in any ownership proposal that continues to push for an immediate correction. A 50-50 split seems fair, but negotiating to get there will be a painstaking process. Player contracts are also a huge concern for the NHL, with issues ranging from the diving salaries used to construct the mega-deals into cap reasonable numbers to entry-level contracts which the league would like to extend from three to five years. Revenue sharing, arbitration, health and safety initiatives or negotiated changes to supplemental discipline are also all important elements in bargaining and chips that can be shuffled once a new economic framework is devised. With no discussions planned, that's a tall order. And that leaves the fear mongers who once again project hockey's version of Armageddon on solid ground. lame.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ossi Vaananen Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I didn't realize I asked a question. My point is that there is a way to avoid current CAP hits to not put a strangle hold on your team by showing that only the CAP number needs to be adjusted. The salaries aren't rolled back the amount that they get back from Escrow would be reduced meaning they make less money. But their CAP hit doesn't change, meaning teams (16) would have to move out players. I wasn't on a tangent I was trying to illustrated my point and back up my arguement. The problem is how do teams get CAP compliant without making major changes to their existing lineup. I was offering a way to get around the problem that the NHL has created by telling teams to spend to the $70M CAP then reducing it $58M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=641040 NHL, NHLPA meet Friday to discuss CBA negotiations Friday, 09.07.2012 / 1:12 PM / News By Dan Rosen - NHL.com Senior Writer NEW YORK -- Negotiations toward establishing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement resumed Friday, one week after talks between the National Hockey League and National Hockey League Players' Association stalled. NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly met at the League's office with NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr and Special Counsel Steve Fehr for a little more than two hours in discussions believed to be centered around restarting the negotiation process. Winnipeg defenseman Ron Hainsey, Buffalo defenseman Robyn Regehr and Minnesota forwardZenon Konopka were also present during the negotiating session. Neither Commissioner Bettman nor Donald Fehr characterized the meeting or revealed what was discussed, but both said the sides plan to continue talking and it's possible that they resume negotiations Friday afternoon. Commissioner Bettman said the dialogue has not stopped and the lines of communication remain open despite the fact that the sides have not had a formal negotiating session in a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eh! Team Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Well on the plus side if there is a lockout we have a chance at McKinnon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Well on the plus side if there is a lockout we have a chance at McKinnon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I'm starting to wonder what Bettman gets paid 8 million dollars a year for if he can't even negotiate new CBA's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The really unfortunate thing is, when they resolve the issues we'll all come storming back in full force. If we collectively as fans of the league got together and boycotted even one game, it would send shock waves through both the NHL and the PA that we're not happy about this crap and that ultimately we are the ones who control whether any of them have jobs or businesses. One game! Start of the season! A game that doesn't really mean anything at the end of the season but would send a clear message. Could you imagine across the NHL if they only had 2000 - 3000 fans show up for opening night and TV only pulling 20% of normal market share? That would get a response and possibly Bettman fired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I'm starting to wonder what Bettman gets paid 8 million dollars a year for if he can't even negotiate new CBA's... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 His job is to get the best deal possible for ppl who hired him, the owners. Not just agree to a deal for the sake of agreeing. He is negotiating a new CBA. It's a process and he's going thru it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The really unfortunate thing is, when they resolve the issues we'll all come storming back in full force. If we collectively as fans of the league got together and boycotted even one game, it would send shock waves through both the NHL and the PA that we're not happy about this crap and that ultimately we are the ones who control whether any of them have jobs or businesses. One game! Start of the season! A game that doesn't really mean anything at the end of the season but would send a clear message. Could you imagine across the NHL if they only had 2000 - 3000 fans show up for opening night and TV only pulling 20% of normal market share? That would get a response and possibly Bettman fired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWMc1 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 coastal1, on 06 September 2012 - 08:11 AM, said: "This is the honest answer for 99% of the fans and that is what it is, period. The owners know it, the NHLPA know it. What are you going to do, start folowing curling or european soccer? Won't happen. Nothing wrong with being mad but that doesn't change one's interest in the game." No-one has to give up NHL hockey. People will watch. People will go to the games. What fans can do is, don't buy NHL merchandise, don't eat or drink at the game. If enough fans vow to do this and let the NHL know, it may actually make a difference and expedite the negotiations. We have to let the owners how we feel and how strongly we feel about this issue. Some-one should start a facebook page letting owners know fan intentions. If the owners lock out the players, I will never buy NHL merchandise again!!!!!! The potential loss of revenue is the only thing greedy people understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vavoom Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Its funny that anybody here thinks that Bettman cares about you. Ironically, the more you care, the less he should care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 The key to a successful negotiation is realizing that there are two parties with interests involved in a negotiation. Bettman has failed 3 times now to realize this, and it has ultimately lead to 3 lockouts in his tenure. Sure he got great deals for him and the owners, but each time he's hurt the NHL's reputation, cost them millions of dollars in lost revenues, and hurt the relationship between the owners and the players. I would call that failing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Bo7 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I think players got a great deal last time too. They just made over $1.5 billion last year. Many owners are still losing money, its Bettman's job to negotiate on behalf of all owners, not just the one's who's teams are profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neufy161 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Many owners are losing money because they are in bad markets, and the rest of the owners have to bail them out. If I'm the owners I'm questioning why Bettman put teams in Phoenix, Atlanta (second time), Florida, Nashville, and Columbus. They could be making a ton more money if they hadn't put teams in such horrible markets. And instead of correcting these mistakes by folding teams like Phoenix, they continue to let them sputter along and leech money from the more profitable teams. He made the same classic mistake that the NBA made, which was expanding too quickly to try and make money, without thinking of the long term stability of the league. And now it's up to the players to pay for these floundering teams? That's BS. This is all on Bettman and the owners for approving these ridiculous franchises. If they want their money, first step is to fold teams like Phoenix, Nashville, Florida, and Columbus. Sell new franchises to area like Seattle, San Fransisco, hell even Quebec City. You fold these teams, and sell them to new owners in better markets, that's a billion dollars in revenue for the NHL right there. Right now all these teams are doing is leeching off the rest of the NHL. The solution is not to simply cut expenses, that's not addressing the real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.