SamJamIam 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...
theminister 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...
gizmo2337 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 The players have offered more than this in their last 3 offers. The last proposal in particular where they drop to 50% immediately if old contracts are honoured would save the owners more than this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If nothing good is done by wednesday, they better f-ing lock themselves in a room until a deal is reached .. Enough of this proposal, then take a week off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Bettman is a Ferengie. It explains everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I would think the clause to have contract number variability at 5% would kill the back ended contracts. Its either that or limit the length I suppose, so nobody can cheat. I think the Redden rule is fair, but those things should be moving forward to fix the greater problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Understand this. Gary Bettman is huffing, puffing and threatening to blow all of the NHL houses down over a difference of about $3 million per team per season over the life of the six-year CBA proposal offered on Thursday by the NHLPA. This is the language spoken by the NHL commissioner not only to the players, 18 of whom he treated with disdain and disrespect while they shared a room with him in Toronto, but to the owners. He is telling the Rangers they can’t open the doors to the transformed money-printing Garden because of $3 million season — at most, given the negotiable nature of the NHLPA’s “50-50” proposal and the prospect of annual revenue growth well beyond the league’s conservative five-percent projections. He is telling the Predators — who already have paid Shea Weber $13 million for this season on a signing bonus — they can’t begin to collect gate receipts or enhanced revenue sharing dollars as proposed by the union. He is telling the Coyotes there will be no money coming into the operation. He is telling the Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Flyers, Canucks and all of the NHL’s economic powerhouses he would rather close up shop than negotiate over a difference of $3 million per year for those ownerships, which, by the way, would reap windfall gains if the PA’s latest proposal were adopted. But that’s Bettman’s history. He canceled the 2004-05 season, remember, over a hypothetical difference of $2.5 million per year per team when he rejected the NHLPA’s proposal of a de-linked $45 million cap after the league proposed a de-linked cap of $42.5 million per. This isn’t someone whose first instinct is to close a deal. This is someone whose first instinct is to close the league. * It’s true. The players are asking the league to guarantee 100 cents on the dollar of all existing contracts when the players never had that protection in the expired CBA. The players lost an average of 3.2 percent of their salaries to escrow over the course of the CBA, approximately 4.5 percent over the final six years of the agreement. So it’s there to be negotiated. It’s there for the league to propose paying 92 or 94 cents on the dollar, for the union to counter by asking for 96, for the parties to reach an agreement under which the owners live up to the spirit of a signed contract and the players don’t wind up paying deferred money to each other. Bettman loves to cite the NBA and NFL within the context of the 50-50 split he now seeks. But it is worth repeating again and again and again. The value of existing contracts in those leagues remained untouched even as the players agreed to take smaller cuts of revenue after being locked out. It is only the NHL among sports leagues that uses the expiration of labor agreements as a tool to empower owners to welch on their collective word. To NHL owners, it’s monopoly money. * The NHL’s latest proposal is as much an attack on big-market teams and creative general managers as it is on the players — perhaps even more so. The five-year contract term limit accompanied by the severe restriction on the annual salary variance is aimed straight at the heart of those franchises, as is the proposal that players earning in excess of $105,000 in the AHL or Europe (after being waived) be counted against the cap. The latter might as well be known as “The Wade Redden Rule,” in honor of the Rangers defenseman who has played the past two seasons — the middle two of his six-year, $39 million deal — in the AHL and thus has not counted against the cap. Ironically, “The Wade Redden Rule” would harm Redden himself if adopted as written. An amnesty buyout would allow the 35-year-old to sign with another team as a free agent. But denied that opportunity (there is no amnesty buyout provision in the NHL’s proposal), Redden will be consigned to the AHL for the next two seasons while the Rangers operate with $6.5 million of dead cap space. They are not adding him to the roster. Kind of a coincidence, isn’t it, that the NHL made its not quite “50-50” offer on Oct. 16, when the NBA made its “50-50” offer a year ago to the basketball players during meetings of Oct.18-20, or is it instead simply off a script? The vindictive nature of Bettman and the board is reflected by the proposal under which teams would be charged with dead cap space for players currently on contracts of at least six years who retire before the end of their respective deals. This is the league attempting to impose punishment for business that was legal when conducted and for contracts that the league registered. It is about Bettman and allies on the Board using collective bargaining to settle vendettas. It is as if the City of New York could issue summonses today to an individual for smoking a cigarette in a bar in 2000. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/don_bett_on_deal_ONtdsSgzTunNVQ9lZXudCI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VancouverCanucksRock Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I see the same ol people vying for player love lol,,,,get over it and let go of the jock strap son...lol please don't use fans and NHLPA feeling the same pain lol I don't make 450 G's to play hockey...Once they realize how good they have it already and they lose it then we'll see who is the boss....the fans..hahaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I feel terrible for the mass of people whos jobs have been affected by these scumbags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Bettman looks like he's (professionally) decided to fall on his sword. Can't see how he survives the internal conflicting interests on the ownership side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 @tpanotchCSN: #NHL, #NHLPA held conf call today to get clarification on HRR and revenue sharing. No meetings sked... For F... Sakes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 @tpanotchCSN: #NHL, #NHLPA held conf call today to get clarification on HRR and revenue sharing. No meetings sked... For F... Sakes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yeah it's all Bettman lol Not the spoiled crys'by's out there in neverland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yeah it's all Bettman lol Not the spoiled crys'by's out there in neverland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 @seangentille: Steve Fehr to AP: League has "essentially said that they are not moving off their last proposal." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 I agree. 50/50 sounded good but is really less (compared to the old CBA) as they also proposed favourable HRR changes. But the offer was, in fact, disingenuous. A 5 year cap on deals, and one requiring cap hits to remain with teams when players retire (even when traded) had serious implications completely smothering a players ability to get a big deal. It would have accomplished reigns on spending. The players will stay behind the line until they retain some negotiating power. The season may not be over, but I don't think any real progress was made. But the next week or so will really tell us the state of the NHL. If we see another proposal within 7-10 days I will be more hopeful, if not then it's not looking so good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Are those pics of Bettman up above chronological? He appears to be gradually getting more frazzled, got some stubble going on and his hair is getting out of whack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 @helenenothelen: NHL and union had 2 conference calls this weekend, union supposedly asking questions about NHL proposal. But no negotiations scheduled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Bettman looks like he's (professionally) decided to fall on his sword. Can't see how he survives the internal conflicting interests on the ownership side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.