poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Fwybwed, yeah. Owners yet again getting everything they want is what's good for fans. Except for the fact that it's thanks to them yet again that we don't have hockey. And them always benefitting from lockouts means we'll be right back here every CBA. Good plan! In reality we need BOTH sides to feel the pain if we hope to avoid future lockouts. Oh, and if the "son" comment was directed at me, congrats on being wrong on everything. How about trying to get over your childish jealousy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Not this time. They don' t want to risk their precious centennial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 25 year cba....that's the terms and I'm sticking to it! I swear that would put the owners into a hole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Gizmo, that's why they would never go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 At the very least, if they could somehow ensure that there'd be no lockout after the next CBA expiry, I'd feel a lot better about giving them how ever long they need to work the current issues out. But as is ... people are already talking about the NEXT lockout. Which is really sad when you think about, and speaks volumes about how much respect the fans garner with these guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Fehr's memo to his members from Friday: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407747 It is actually pretty amusing, he outlines his Option #3 which is an immediate reduction of player share to 50%... but he actually does the exact opposite of what the league proposes. The league says they will honour contracts, but in reality will hold out and then take back a huge chunk from escrow. Fehr's proposal says they will agree to 50/50, but the (roughly) 13% of each contract that would be reduced under that formula get paid as a separate fund and not count towards the plays share or cap. ... a lot of distance between two offer of a 50/50 split How about a gradual reduction of 1% in year 1; 2% in year 2; 2% in year 3; 2% in year 4 to gradually drop it to 50/50? Maybe have the cap frozen so if the league grows faster than anticipated, the reduction in share drops faster than that formula... while player dollars don't reduce in pure terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 It would be nice to hear the thoughts of Weber, Suter and Parise about how much their life and life style would have to change if they accepted the latest NHL offer. Has anyone heard a word from any of these three during the lock out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewdog Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Is it strategy or desperation that the players are now wearing suits instead of casual clothing when they stand behind Fehr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Clutch Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Is it strategy or desperation that the players are now wearing suits instead of casual clothing when they stand behind Fehr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Doctor Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The players should just take the leagues offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The league should take one of the players' offers. Or, they could all just behave like grownups, find common ground, both give a little and get this done instead of worrying about who's name was written bigger in the snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bolt Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 What the players don't realize is that the longer this gets revenue will be substanatially down and will 53% vs 50% really matter when they cause a major long term revenue disruption? I know I will cut back on canuck stuff and hopefully more will boycott this joke of a league and nhlpa that doesn't care 1 bit about its fan base other then the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Shouldn't drops in revenue be a bigger concern for the owners, as they get a larger share personally and will be owners (presumably) for longer than players will be players? So, get mad at the players, but save an equal portion for the league because they obviously don't care any more about us than the players do! Remember, the players offered to keep playing under the old CBA so the league wouldn't lose revenue or momentum in emerging markets but the owners decided to lock them out instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Funny how the players whined and are still whining quite a bit about how they fealt so snubbed about Bettman and the owners only taking 10-15 minutes looking at the players latest proposal. It says more about how ridiculous the players offer was then a show of disrespect by not taking the time. These players are doing a horrible job of acting out what Fehr is telling them to say seeing them cdo the rehearsed complaining how they are so hard done by is shameful. They are trying so hard to sway the fans opinions every chance they get because they know no matter what they cry about the bottom line is they are the most greedy in this dispute and most fans will get that. Fehr does not want to lose this battle for obvious personal reasons i just hope the average decent smart player realises this and they step up and tell the PA leaders they will be more then alright financially with the owners offer and get back to playing hockey again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Shouldn't drops in revenue be a bigger concern for the owners, as they get a larger share personally and will be owners (presumably) for longer than players will be players? So, get mad at the players, but save an equal portion for the league because they obviously don't care any more about us than the players do! Remember, the players offered to keep playing under the old CBA so the league wouldn't lose revenue or momentum in emerging markets but the owners decided to lock them out instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigneault's Timeout Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Impressive how Gary Bettman's 50/50 rhetoric has influenced everyone to believe the NHLPA are public enemy #1. Oh, and the whole "They make x dollars while I may y, and I'd do it for z!!" argument is a little overdone fellas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Remember Don Fehr kept playing under the old CBA of baseball and they went on strike in August of that year cancelling the World Series. What's makes you think he would not do the same thing in hockey? After all, by then the players would have gotten most of their yearly salary and have nothing to lose because they don't get paid by the owners in the play-offs. At the very least the NHL mentions the fans during some of the press conferences, where I have yet to hear the PA say anything about the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remy Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 LP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I've come up with own twist on the accounting end of the CBA. It would work as follows: -players agree to declining percentage over course of CBA until 49% is reached for players -players HRR remains frozen based on 2012, until growth level allows 49% split -cap is based is player percentage/30teams for midpoint -upper cap and lower cap is 8mil above and 12mil below midpoint -teams exceeding the midpoint pay more into revenue sharing -teams below cap receive more revenue sharing with 5% growth, it looks like this with 1.58b savings to owners over course of deal. In order for the players to do this, the teams spending over the midpoint would need to contribute more (escalating tax?) to the lower revenue teams. Teams that are on tighter budget are rewarded for spending within their means (direct savings on players salary and higher revenue sharing). yr revenue player cut player% owner savings cap mid 2013 3.44b 1.870b 54.3 93m 62m 2014 3.61b 1.870b 51.7 191m 62m 2015 3.80b 1.870b 49.2 294m 62m 2016 3.99b 1.95b 49 319m 65m 2017 4.19b 2.05b 49 335m 68m 2018 4.40b 2.15b 49 352m 72m Now, what this doesn't address is how the owners get immediate relief in the first three years. Somehow that owner savings needs to be averaged out over the deal while still allowing the players to get their money. Maybe a deferred make whole payment where the players just get that money later? In order for the players to concede 49%, I think they should be rewarded with a longer deal, and even more revenue sharing between teams than has been suggested. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M A K A V E L I 96 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.