Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
6226 replies to this topic

#3061 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,575 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:54 PM

This season is toast. You all get excited about a 1/2 season for the stanley Cup? F that.


Better than no hockey?
  • 1

307mg00.jpg


#3062 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

Better than no hockey?


What's Hockey?
  • 0
Posted Image

#3063 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,162 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 04:58 PM

As a player - you would steer clear of NYI (or any other team that may do that).

If I am not mistaken -- the 'bonuses' in ELC are going to be removed from the Salary Cap hit.... which is what teams like NYI were using to get to the cap floor.

I agree. It'd be limited somewhat as most of the larger deals would have NTC clauses to protect them from being moved around like stocks rather than players. The exception would be players signing significant deals right after their ELCs or while still an RFA, as those contracts aren't allowed NTC/NMC clauses (although it's possible that changes in the new CBA).

The bonuses issue was talked about but might not be in the final version of things. Having the ability to hold cap hit might be a way for teams to get around that if it does stick though.

Thank you. I've been saying Fehr wants guaranteed money but for some reason people don't read the actual proposal, they just listen to the PA talking points and believe what is said. Read the fine prints people, that's where the truth is.
http://espn.go.com/b...ffer-to-the-nhl

In the last version, he wanted the players' share of HRR to be calculated against an 82 game season and what was used last year, rather than a lockout shortened season and reduced revenues from loss of fans. That is a guarantee, sure, but only for the one year.

This proposal has HRR for the players at an amount guaranteed not to drop below what it was in a previous year, which could mean nothing if growth is steady and predictable, but could be an issue if the NHL spikes in growth and then drops the next year (and potentially not reach the spiked amount for a number of years after). In the second scenario, the players would get more HRR share over those years than just 50% but it's likely to be a small amount.

They are different clauses with different meanings for their guarantees, but they are still guarantees as you mention. The first was basically to say, "The NHL caused the lockout so why should the NHLPA lose out on money this year?" The second is a bonus more similar to the 54%-57% HRR option in the last CBA where a larger than expected revenue growth favours the players considering the owners are using conservative numbers in their proposals.

Edited by elvis15, 21 November 2012 - 05:08 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#3064 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,041 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:01 PM

*
POPULAR

Bettman is "mystified" that the players didn't accept their last offer?

What the hell? He's mystified that the players didn't accept a deal that took away 20% of their salaries, and restricted their contracting rights more than any other professional sports league in the world?

I guess the real problem here is that Bettman is just out of touch with reality...
  • 7

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#3065 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:07 PM

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie
My fear would be $211M is absolute max NHL will go to and that offer will soon have time limit attached to it, could be reduced/pulled.

Edited by WHL rocks, 21 November 2012 - 05:09 PM.

  • 0

#3066 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:20 PM

Bob McKenzie@TSNBobMcKenzie
My fear would be $211M is absolute max NHL will go to and that offer will soon have time limit attached to it, could be reduced/pulled.


yeah lets cancel an entire season for a fight over 182million dollars! makes sense from the crazyboat.
  • 0

#3067 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:25 PM

I agree. It'd be limited somewhat as most of the larger deals would have NTC clauses to protect them from being moved around like stocks rather than players. The exception would be players signing significant deals right after their ELCs or while still an RFA, as those contracts aren't allowed NTC/NMC clauses (although it's possible that changes in the new CBA).


Not necessarily true. Consider Dallas just signed Jagr to 4.5m for one year, and they haven't signed Benn yet. They are a financially struggling team that should be aiming for the cap floor. Why would they spend this money? They could trade him and keep the cap hit and that would be worth something to a team like NYR. I don't actually think that is the case with Jagr, but it is strange how they spent when they can't afford to. Not saying it will happen or was planned, but it could definitely be used as a loophole by a team like NYI.

Imagine how much Weber would be worth if Nashville kept the cap hit. Can you say bigger than Lindros trade! It will never happen, but I have to admit, that trade set up Colorado to be a perennial contender for a long time.
  • 0

#3068 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,766 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:33 PM

I'm thinking a deal will be made around christmas, the players are going to have to cave, and I'm sure they will soon. They're losing to much money. frack Bettman.
  • 0

m97o1w.jpg

Credit to Parise11


#3069 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,162 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:54 PM

Not necessarily true. Consider Dallas just signed Jagr to 4.5m for one year, and they haven't signed Benn yet. They are a financially struggling team that should be aiming for the cap floor. Why would they spend this money? They could trade him and keep the cap hit and that would be worth something to a team like NYR. I don't actually think that is the case with Jagr, but it is strange how they spent when they can't afford to. Not saying it will happen or was planned, but it could definitely be used as a loophole by a team like NYI.

Imagine how much Weber would be worth if Nashville kept the cap hit. Can you say bigger than Lindros trade! It will never happen, but I have to admit, that trade set up Colorado to be a perennial contender for a long time.

Yeah, but why would Jagr sign there for as much as he did without an NTC if it were a worry? NYI would have a hard enough time attracting UFAs without trading them away to use their cap space. Maybe they get away with it once, but it's unlikely they would again.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#3070 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:54 PM

yeah lets cancel an entire season for a fight over 182million dollars! makes sense from the crazyboat.


$182 million?? Many posters have posted the PA proposal on this thread still people refuse to read and understand the PA's proposal. They just go by a few Fehr talking points.

If it was $182 million the deal would be signed right away. Attached is a copy of Fehr's letter to agents. The PA wants guaranteed $'s going forward. Not work off actual HRR but the player's share to be guaranteed to the amount of last year's share. The NHL can not and will not ever agree to this. The union is proposing to decouple from HRR %.


http://espn.go.com/b...ffer-to-the-nhl

Edited by WHL rocks, 21 November 2012 - 06:16 PM.

  • 0

#3071 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,330 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 05:55 PM

Not necessarily true. Consider Dallas just signed Jagr to 4.5m for one year, and they haven't signed Benn yet. They are a financially struggling team that should be aiming for the cap floor. Why would they spend this money? They could trade him and keep the cap hit and that would be worth something to a team like NYR. I don't actually think that is the case with Jagr, but it is strange how they spent when they can't afford to. Not saying it will happen or was planned, but it could definitely be used as a loophole by a team like NYI.

Imagine how much Weber would be worth if Nashville kept the cap hit. Can you say bigger than Lindros trade! It will never happen, but I have to admit, that trade set up Colorado to be a perennial contender for a long time.


Um.... Dallas has a brand new owner in Tom Gaglardi, who WANTS to spend money.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3072 vancanfan

vancanfan

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,516 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 06

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:02 PM

http://espn.go.com/b...ost/_/id/20343?

ESPN.com's Pierre LeBrun has learned from a source what the NHL has offered to do on matters of player contracts. Unedited, from source:

On main areas:


NHL's offer on player contracting



(1) offered to give back the year in ELS (NHL has moved from 2+3 to 2 and now back to 3).
(2) dropped/withdrew request for mutuality of Salary Arb rights but maintained request for extra year to Salary Arb, also offered to synchronize timing of Club-elected Salary Arbs as per NHLPA request.
(3) suggested willingness to be flexible of 5% contract variability proposal but maintained request for 5 year term limits on contracts.
(4) maintained request for extra year to free agency, but gave on UFA interview period and pointed out that 3 year EL deal plus 5 year max contract puts Player right into UFA for their third contract
(5) embraced Union's request to allow retained salary in trades subject to upwardly revised parameters
(6) embraced Union's request for Payroll Range determined as a percentage of Midpoint as opposed to flat $16 million
(7) embraced Union's Cap Advantage Recapture concept subject to several minor modifications and application to existing long-term contracts
(8) agreed to eliminate Re-Entry Waivers
(9) Performance Bonus Cushion in every year of new agreement
(10) extension of No Move/No Trade clauses to last year of "extended" SPC

other "system-related things" league has agreed to:

(1) no Union guarantee of Escrow shortfall and more discretion to Union in setting Escrow rate
(2) increase in Playoff Pool
(3) mechanism to allow for Cap exception for recalled players for roster emergencies
(4) changes to waiver rules for Emergency recalls and mid-season European signings
(5) agreement to continue increasing Minimum Salaries over life of new CBA
(6) Lower Limit to be satisfied without regard to performance bonuses
(7) agreed to limitations on "second/salary arb" buyout provisions
(8) agreed to re-work Critical Date Calendar
(9) $60 million Cap in Year 1 (with transition rules allowing Clubs to go to $70.2 million for full year) and guaranteed cap of $60 million in Year 2 even though HRR formula would have provided for lower Cap


Edited by vancanfan, 21 November 2012 - 06:06 PM.

  • 2

#3073 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:11 PM

http://espn.go.com/b...ost/_/id/20343?


Thanks for posting VCF.

Wow. That's a lot of movement.

I think agreement is probable after reading this. Great news.

Edited by WHL rocks, 21 November 2012 - 06:15 PM.

  • 0

#3074 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 06:51 PM

The way I read that the framework is actually in place.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3075 Squeak

Squeak

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,330 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:03 PM

The way I read that the framework is actually in place.


BUT BETTMAN TOLD ME THEY ARE FAR APART!
  • 3
Posted Image

#3076 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,795 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:04 PM


Didn't he players already lose out 20 percent on wages lost this season already plus 100 percent of wage for the year? That makes no sense either

Bettman is "mystified" that the players didn't accept their last offer?

What the hell? He's mystified that the players didn't accept a deal that took away 20% of their salaries, and restricted their contracting rights more than any other professional sports league in the world?

I guess the real problem here is that Bettman is just out of touch with reality...


  • 0

#3077 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

BUT BETTMAN TOLD ME THEY ARE FAR APART!


Yes. And you will still read the comments from the three posters who state that the players have no leverage which, if that were true, the NHL would not be giving any concessions regarding the PAs proposal. Why Boudrias, who makes valid points points and effectively communicates them, sticks up for those three I have no idea.

After reading the NHL's response above to the PAs suggestions I believe the will find a midpoint on the salary issue this weekend. It seems all others are in the ballpark with one another. The only other issue that stands out is the 5 year contract length but I can see both sides giving a little on that one.

Edited by theminister, 21 November 2012 - 07:48 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3078 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:10 PM

The NHLPA has now been ordered by Bettman to put together a deal. See how much power Fehr has?

When faced with this reality, he NOW claims they are putting together a 'new' proposal ? The owners have now completely painted Fehr into a corner where they HAVE to cave in completely.

The players must be SO PLEASED that they hired this guy. He is utterly useless.


It's because the Owner's are bonedheaded and are unwilling to negotiate fairly.

They are ignorant and stubborn beyond the belief, all they do is make demands, then whenever the NHLPA steps forward and makes huge steps forward they brush it off like nothing, and it makes no sense why.

Just because the PA made a proposal doesn't explain how Fehr isn't doing his job, What corner has he been painted into? The process was at a dead end, the NHL was brain dead as to the next step and the PA stepped forward from the dust and moved this process along again. So could you explain it cause your logic doesn't make much sense to me.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 21 November 2012 - 07:13 PM.

  • 2

zackass.png


#3079 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:38 PM

(6) embraced Union's request for Payroll Range determined as a percentage of Midpoint as opposed to flat $16 million


I don't think the players yet understand how much of a win this one point could be. If this goes down, I expect this one point to be reason for "the next lockout".
  • 0

#3080 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:39 PM

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman says both sides are "still far apart":

NEW YORK, N.Y. - The NHL and NHL Players' Association finally seem to be speaking the same language, but they still have a gap to bridge in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement.


The union tabled a comprehensive proposal Wednesday that generated a tepid response from the league. However, commissioner Gary Bettman acknowledged the six-page offer was a step in the right direction and the document appeared to offer a path forward in talks, with the sides now envisioning the same type of economic system.


"There was some movement in our direction and it was appreciated," said Bettman. "We're still far apart. But hopefully there's some momentum so we can bring this to a conclusion."


The union proposed a 50-50 split of revenues during the five-year deal along with $393 million in deferred make whole payments throughout the agreement. Two weeks ago, the league offered $211 million and a 50-50 split.


NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr acknowledged that his constituents are anxious to end the lockout and indicated that the new offer is "about as good" as the players are willing to make.


"(The players) are suffering right along with the fans," said Fehr. "We made an enormous move in the owners direction to try and end it — at least as of today that hasn't been successful."


Until now, the union had been pushing for a system that would see players paid a fixed amount of .....



This is very important.

This suggests the NHL does want Player's Share and HRR delinked. I can see why they would.

The PA is making a concession here though it will be difficult for the hardline anti-PA posters to see. The league is willing to accept a delinked HRR, with small annual increases, under the right initial terms because they must fully believe they will be able to increase revenue which will outpace the set amount in the near future.

If the League and the PA can agree on an economic starting point with a minimal increase of 1.75% per annum then the teams stand to reap a large windfall if they can keep the total HRR growing by 5-7% as they must feel confident in their ability to do. This would leave the players share significantly less than 50% by the end of the CBA though the players will never see their actual real dollar amount fall.

I can see the end point here and it is close IMHO.

Edited by theminister, 21 November 2012 - 07:46 PM.

  • 1

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3081 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:44 PM

I don't think the players yet understand how much of a win this one point could be. If this goes down, I expect this one point to be reason for "the next lockout".



Why?

If the range stays a fixed percentage, say 33%, then how could you see this being a potential problem down the line?

It's more rational than to have the cap go from 39 mil to 56 mil and the range to stay the same, as it had under the old CBA, no? Doesn't that just make sense? I'm failing to see what you see.
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3082 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

(5) embraced Union's request to allow retained salary in trades subject to upwardly revised parameters


omg, they are going to eliminate the player bonus loopholes and allow new ones! Wang approves of this deal lol
  • 0

#3083 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

Why?

If the range stays a fixed percentage, say 33%, then how could you see this being a potential problem down the line?

It's more rational than to have the cap go from 39 mil to 56 mil and the range to stay the same, as it had under the old CBA, no? Doesn't that just make sense? I'm failing to see what you see.


It can be abused to defeat parity. Widens the gap between the rich and poor teams. With the poor teams in the majority, we have a lockout. See picture below and guess where the last lockout occurred.

playersalary.jpg
  • 0

#3084 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,879 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 21 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

I don't think the players yet understand how much of a win this one point could be. If this goes down, I expect this one point to be reason for "the next lockout".


omg, they are going to eliminate the player bonus loopholes and allow new ones! Wang approves of this deal lol


Ok you're going to have to elaborate if you understand the legal language better than us. Please, elaborate.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#3085 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:04 PM

It can be abused to defeat parity. Widens the gap between the rich and poor teams. With the poor teams in the majority, we have a lockout. See picture below and guess where the last lockout occurred.


How does it 'widen the gap?' It's a relative amount based on percentage. If you look at the graph you provided, the first year of the cap was actually close economically and represented a much larger spread than the last year of the CBA as the variance accounted to about 40% of the midpoint.

Before the last CBA there was no cap so those figures don't apply to this conversation. If you were to assume that the cap range will be a fixed 33% then here is a short example of how that changes numbers. Not much.

mid 3, low 2, high 4
mid 6, low 4, high 8
mid 9, low 6, high 12

Edited by theminister, 21 November 2012 - 08:06 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3086 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,286 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:13 PM

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman says both sides are "still far apart":

NEW YORK, N.Y. - The NHL and NHL Players' Association finally seem to be speaking the same language, but they still have a gap to bridge in negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement.


The union tabled a comprehensive proposal Wednesday that generated a tepid response from the league. However, commissioner Gary Bettman acknowledged the six-page offer was a step in the right direction and the document appeared to offer a path forward in talks, with the sides now envisioning the same type of economic system.


"There was some movement in our direction and it was appreciated," said Bettman. "We're still far apart. But hopefully there's some momentum so we can bring this to a conclusion."


The union proposed a 50-50 split of revenues during the five-year deal along with $393 million in deferred make whole payments throughout the agreement. Two weeks ago, the league offered $211 million and a 50-50 split.


NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr acknowledged that his constituents are anxious to end the lockout and indicated that the new offer is "about as good" as the players are willing to make.


"(The players) are suffering right along with the fans," said Fehr. "We made an enormous move in the owners direction to try and end it — at least as of today that hasn't been successful."


Until now, the union had been pushing for a system that would see players paid a fixed amount of revenue each season rather than receiving a percentage of it. However, the new offer included some safeguards to ensure they'd be protected in the event league revenues stalled, including a clause that states the players' share can't drop from year to year.


"The players are making enormous concessions to the owners and we want some protection on the downside," said Fehr.


There is also ground still to cover on contract issues.


The new NHLPA offer included a rule that would punish teams who sign players to long-term, back-diving contracts — something the league has identified as an important issue. It also called for players making more than $1-million in the minors to have their salary count against the salary cap.


However, the union chose not adopt the NHL's proposed changes to unrestricted free agency, entry-level deals and salary arbitration, among other things.


Some of those issues were discussed when the league and NHLPA reconvened Wednesday after the NHL had a chance to study the offer.


"We went through their proposal point by point," said Bettman. "We talked about the things that were agreeable, we talked about the things that we could modify, we talked about the things that we had no more room to move on and explained our proposal on each of those elements."


With the lockout into its 10th week, the sides are attempting to reach a deal that would see a shortened schedule played this season. The labour dispute has damaged the sport's business, with Bettman saying the league is losing between $18 and $20 million every day of the labour dispute.


The commissioner indicated that he was surprised they hadn't already been able to reach an agreement.


"We made a proposal (in October) to save an 82-game season and frankly we're all mystified as to why we're not playing in light of that offer and in light of the fact that the players are losing as a group between $8 and $10 million a day," said Bettman. "We could have been playing, we could have been continuing the momentum this game had on an offer and an agreement that was long term and fair.


"So there's a lot about this process that one could scratch their head about."


The sides are expected to touch base on Friday, but no further meetings have been scheduled.


http://www.thescore....still-far-apart


Two things.
First, if according to Bettman, the NHL is losing 18-20 million a day and the players are losing 8-10, that means the NHL is losing 10 doesn't it? So, I may be simple, but it would seem that the NHL is losing the greater percentage, or at the very least, an equal percentage? Wouldn't that suggest that the NHL already enjoys a greater share of the revenue split? I thought the premise was that the players were taking home the greater 57% share (or whatever)? Anyone care to explain Bettmanomics to me? It seems to me that there is yet another contradiction here - an admission of sorts - that the reality is not as it has been presented. If the players are losing 8 and the owners 10, then the owners are already taking home 56%, and if it's 10 and 10, then obviously already a 50/50 split. What would be the justification of the lockout?

Second, if the gap is 182 million, and the losses are 18-20 million a day, that would suggest that the lockout, which is in day 64, has caused losses of over a billion dollars - between 1 billion, 152 million and 1 billion, 280 million.

This would be the equivalent of you and I fighting over a day's pay - for seven full days - wouldn't it?

Edited by oldnews, 21 November 2012 - 08:30 PM.

  • 1

#3087 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:20 PM

Ok you're going to have to elaborate if you understand the legal language better than us. Please, elaborate.


I don't fully understand how the trading of cap space works as proposed, so take it with a grain of salt. If it means the poor teams can retain some cap and trade a player to a contender, then parity is out the window.

Previously, there was a hard upper cap, but if you can trade cap space, then you can really cheat, especially at the deadline. Contenders gain more advantage, non-contenders can save even more money. Sounds almost like a soft cap doesn't it?

Trend seems to be cap limit teams exploit the max, cap min teams exploit the minimum. I wouldn't expect that to change much over the course of next CBA.

Edit.
The money doesn't change. Just the parity and system abuse.

Edited by gizmo2337, 21 November 2012 - 08:21 PM.

  • 0

#3088 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,450 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:25 PM

I don't fully understand how the trading of cap space works as proposed, so take it with a grain of salt. If it means the poor teams can retain some cap and trade a player to a contender, then parity is out the window.

Previously, there was a hard upper cap, but if you can trade cap space, then you can really cheat, especially at the deadline. Contenders gain more advantage, non-contenders can save even more money. Sounds almost like a soft cap doesn't it?

Trend seems to be cap limit teams exploit the max, cap min teams exploit the minimum. I wouldn't expect that to change much over the course of next CBA.

Edit.
The money doesn't change. Just the parity and system abuse.


Except the difference here is that the teams will have to give up assets to achieve that, presumably young prospects on cheaper ELCs and draft picks.

Therefore, teams that scout, draft and develop well will be able to retool faster than in previous years. If you are out of the race anyway then it's better to get ready for the next one. This seems like it will help the parity argument rather than requiring teams to undergo prolonged rebuilding stages. This should help generate excitement and interest for the cap dumping teams for each upcoming training camp. Couple this with the earlier FA period before the draft and I see this as a win-win especially as it means the teams actually competing for the Cup will be loaded with better players, producing a better quality of Stanley Cup playoffs.

Edited by theminister, 21 November 2012 - 08:28 PM.

  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#3089 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

$182 million?? Many posters have posted the PA proposal on this thread still people refuse to read and understand the PA's proposal. They just go by a few Fehr talking points.

If it was $182 million the deal would be signed right away. Attached is a copy of Fehr's letter to agents. The PA wants guaranteed $'s going forward. Not work off actual HRR but the player's share to be guaranteed to the amount of last year's share. The NHL can not and will not ever agree to this. The union is proposing to decouple from HRR %.


http://espn.go.com/b...ffer-to-the-nhl


thats not what that website says at all. ive read im pretty sure i understand it.

quote: •
Our players’ share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players’ share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players’ share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

it is EXACTLY the same as the NHL's proposal +182million dollars with a caveat that if their is permanent damage AFTER the lockout in year2 (or next season) to years 3,4,5,6 the NHL is responsible for that loss, so in that sense it is decoupled from HRR but its really just a mechanism to protect the players and wont result in a higher players share unless the owners fail to even retain the revenues from year2 of the proposal which is extremely unlikely.
  • 0

#3090 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 958 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 05

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:41 PM

Therefore, teams that scout, draft and develop well will be able to retool faster than in previous years. If you are out of the race anyway then it's better to get ready for the next one. This seems like it will help the parity argument rather than requiring teams to undergo prolonged rebuilding stages. This should help generate excitement and interest for the cap dumping teams for each upcoming training camp. Couple this with the earlier FA period before the draft and I see this as a win-win especially as it means the teams actually competing for the Cup will be loaded with better players, producing a better quality of Stanley Cup playoffs.


True true, I see that point and I'd love to see a better cup final with more talent, always. It still seems like a form of soft cap proposal. I'm not saying it is terrible, but the parity argument is out the window.

Edited by gizmo2337, 21 November 2012 - 08:52 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.