Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


Recommended Posts

My point to this is that both sides are still projecting continued growth (or they were), and it is much more likely that there wouldn't be any significant spike in revenue followed by a large drop that would make that clause enough of a penalty to be worried about.

Both sides want growth, and just like the NHLPA got with the 54%/57% HRR levels in the last CBA they're trying to encourage the NHL to aim for growth with this clause. The NHL certainly isn't going to give them 51 or 52% of HRR if their revenue projections were overly pessimistic, so the NHLPA is asking for something that forces the NHL to look at areas that are issues in the business outside the players' control.

I've said before anyway, if the contracting details can be negotiated more to the players' favour, then the NHLPA will likely come down on financial issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish it was that easy and we get to watch hockey soon.

The biggest deal breaker right now is Fehr is asking for guaranteed $$$ no matter what happens to HRR. Actually its worst, Fehr is asking for guaranteed $1.88 Billion + equal share of any increase in HRR over the length of the CBA, but players don't get any less $$$ than previous year of deal if HRR drops. It would decouple the salary cap from revenue. How can the owners possibly agree to that after fighting so hard for a salary cap. Not gonna happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I think it isn't not a completely unreasonable request to ask for more than 50% in the first year for the players unless the transition payments are made to satisfacton or close to it, after all they are taking a big rollback for the NHL and they aren't getting anything for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Poetica. Player's share will not be 50%. You are failing to realize this. Fehr is attempting to delink from HRR. When you ask for guaranteed players share will not drop below x number of $, then the 50-50 part is null and void.

It doesn't matter if HRR keeps going up. This system would de link players share from HRR. I don't know if there is a point in going back and forth on this. IMO this is a huge issue, in yours its not.

If any one thinks this is not the main issue and the problem is $182 million I couldn't disagree with them more.

The PA proposal is there for every one to look at and judge for them selves what it says. It's a lot of lawyer speak and if anyone is willing to take either side's talking points at face value then good for them. I don't, I look at the fine print. I may interpret some points different from others do and vise versa.

I can understand Bettman and Fehr being frustrated. Even fans can't agree on what the NHLPA proposal really says how could these 2 possibly agree on it.

On the $1.8 billion part, I do believe Fehr wants to use that figure to work out a deal for HRR for first year of contract. I spoke about it above and why Fehr refused to negotiate the lockout shortened season as part of the package. He wants to come back to it afterwards. He has said the owners should take responsiblility for loss HRR due to lockout. Which is plain language is HRR this year would be what it was last year +.

It's been posted before but here it is anyways.

NHLPA Proposal — 21 November 2012

This proposal addresses significant open issues concerning revenue sharing, player contracting, the players’ share, and certain other open areas, as reflected below. This proposal does not address other items upon which we have agreed or are pending, such as health and safety, hockey issues, the “jock tax”, and international.

1. Revenue Sharing

Pool of $200 Million at $3.303 B of HRR. Varies year to year with HRR.

Contributions to be raised per NHL formula. No discretion to increase individual team contributions beyond what formula provides.

Existing level of distributions to be protected for 2 years. If additional funds needed, raised pro-rata from all teams.

Revenue Sharing Oversight Committee (RSOC) has discretion to adjust amounts for Phase One distributions by up to +/- 15% per team, provided that all such adjustments are considered and decided upon at one time:

  • RSOC by unanimous vote may move beyond +/- 15% limitation towards but not exceeding the straight pool value for regular season HRR (Must therefore compute straight pool every year).

Industry Growth Fund to be managed by the RSOC:

  • IGF will have callable dollars of up to $20M in first year, $40M in second year, and $60M in each subsequent year of the agreement.

  • Need to establish criteria for which teams may apply for IGF funding and/or will submit plans.

  • IGF funding is available to any team by unanimous consent of RSOC.

  • IGF funding also available for industry-wide programs or projects.

RSOC has seven (7) members selected by the parties in their sole discretion, as follows:

  • Four employer representatives, at least one of which must by an owner.

  • Three (3) player representatives, at least one of which must be a player.

  • Parties may name up to 2 Alternate RSOC representatives who will serve in the event of absence of a member.

  • Need to spell out in drafting the process of the RSOC, and limited arbitral review of decisions.

2. Defined Benefit Pension Plan

The parties will establish a defined benefit pension plan under US law per the NHLPA proposal.

3. Discipline

For on-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to a neutral arbitrator or to a panel of three arbitrators (one appointed by each side and one neutral). The standard of review will be whether the League’s finding of a violation of the League Playing Rules was supported by substantial evidence, and, if so, whether the penalty imposed was within the League’s reasonable discretion and consistent with past practice.

For off-ice discipline, there will be an appeal to the impartial arbitrator. The issue will be whether the discipline was for just cause.

4. Player Contracting and System Issues

NHLPA liability for escrow is eliminated from the side letter.

NHLPA may set a higher percentage for escrow in a given year than the formula would provide. The NHL may also set a higher percentage than the formula would provide in the last year of the agreement, provided that any number so set is not unreasonable.

The Playoff Pool is increased per the NHLPA proposal.

Liquidated damages provisions in SPCs are prohibited. This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.

Prompt mutual disclosure of European loan agreements, ATOs and PTOs.

NHLPA proposal on no trade / no move clauses.

NHL proposal to prevent a team playing with less than the minimum of 18/2 is accepted provided limitation is the NHL minimum + $100,000; counts against the share but not the cap.

Waivers:

  • Re-entry waivers are eliminated.

  • Waivers will be required to loan a player who is on emergency recall if that player has played 10 games.

  • NHLPA proposal on 13.23 waivers.

Four Recall Rule:

  • After the conclusion of the Regular Season, a Club may exercise an unlimited number of additional Regular Recalls provided that it may have no more than three (3) Players on its Active Roster who were recalled by way of Regular Recall after the Trade Deadline.

Minimum salary continues to increase on the same schedule as previous CBA, $25,000 every second year.

Goepfert Rule as proposed by NHLPA.

Performance bonus cushion in each year of the agreement.

The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.

Players and cash/cap trading. A team may have an unlimited number of Retained Salary Transactions up to 15% of the Upper Limit in any League year.

The amount in excess of $1M paid to a player while in the minor leagues or in Europe on an NHL contract counts against the cap (none counts against the share). This applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.

NHLPA cap benefit recapture proposal:

  • Applies only to new contracts, i.e., contracts entered into after a new CBA is in effect.

  • Applies to contracts of 9 years or longer.

  • 35 year old rule changed to provide that the cap charge taken will be as per cap benefit recapture.

Salary Arbitration:

  • Walk away eliminated.

Second buyout period will continue in its current form except that:

  • A Club may not buy out a player who was not on its Reserve List as of the most recent Trade Deadline.

  • A Club may not buy out a player who has a cap hit of less than $3 M.

Critical dates calendar:

  • Sec. 12.3(a) election moved per NHLPA proposal.

  • Free agency interview period per NHLPA proposal.

Salary Cap and Payroll Range:

  • Growth Factor, Performance Bonus Cushion, Long-Term, injury continue except for any changes already agreed to or contained in this proposal.

  • +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14.

  • The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).

5. Players’ Share

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.

Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:

  • 2012/13: $182 M

  • 2013/14: $128 M

  • 2014/15: $72 M

  • 2015/16: $11 M

Payment of these amounts may be deferred for one year (specific payment date to be agreed upon), with the deferral accumulating interest rate equal to the sum of the prime interest rate in effect at The J.P. Morgan Chase Bank on the next June 15, plus 1%. Payment of these fixed dollar amounts is guaranteed by the League.

In years two through five of this Agreement, the players’ share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year. Attached are charts which show this proposal against your last in the format you provided after our last proposal.

6. Term of CBA

The term of the CBA will be for 5 years/seasons, and will end on September 15, 2017.

7. Transition Rules to be negotiated

May cover, among other things, compliance buyouts, pro-ration of status/service and statistical criteria/thresholds based on the length of the season, movement of deadlines, and any other relevant matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just stick a fork in the season already please.. I stopped caring a longggg time ago. A 48 game season sure would be interesting.... i just don't think it would be in the Canucks favour with the majority of our squad sitting around doing jack squat.. This point in time im perfectly fine with and expecting a total wash of a season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help shaking the feeling that just as 04-05 was about players share every bit as much the salary cap that this standoff is more about guaranteed contracts than it is about hard dollars.

The attack on contract rights spells out in plain sight in my eyes. Salary cap + no guaranteed contracts = sports ownership nirvana.

If we lose a season, union decertification or not, I think this was the objective all along. The only way the NHL was going to give this fight up was with massive concessions on everything else.

Mark my words, if the season is lost, non-guaranteed contracts are all we will be hearing about from then on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, when I read the full 480 page CBA , there was no doubt 2 things happened.

1) owners got a salary cap

2) Union got everything else. You may disagree with what 'everything else' means, but there can be no debate that these concessions were all better than what they had before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

owners, players want to cut out mediators

The NHL Players’ Association is still trying to decide whether to take a shot or pass on Gary Bettman’s invitation to sit down with the owners.

The union’s negotiating committee and executive board held a conference call Friday to stickhandle around the idea tabled by the NHL commissioner, moments after an attempt to sit down with a federal mediator fell apart Thursday.

Not only would Bettman and deputy commissioner Bill Daly not be in the room, NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr and special counsel Steve Fehr wouldn’t be welcomed either, so players could hear directly from the owners.

Not every player is against the meeting. Minnesota Wild veteran centre Zenon Konopka told QMI Agency Friday, before the players’ conference call, if that’s what the league wants the NHLPA should try it.

“Let’s take five owners and draft 15 players. Let’s talk and let’s get it done,” said Konopka from Long Island, N.Y. “We’re players … and nobody wants to play more than us.

“Let’s try every different avenue to get a deal done. If the commissioner wants that -- we just want to play -- anything he wants.”

If the players agree, the indications are they want to see different owners than Ted Leonsis (Washington), Jeremy Jacobs (Boston) and Murray Edwards (Calgary). Moderates like James Dolan of the New York Rangers and Montreal’s Geoff Molson would be welcomed.

In return, a league source said the NHL might request some names the players want. Tampa Bay Lightning winger Martin St. Louis told the Tampa Bay Times Friday he’d like to be there if the two sides decide to go ahead with these talks.

“I would,” St. Louis told the newspaper. “But you would have to be cautious, too. These guys (the owners) are successful because they’ve been doing deals their whole life. We’re hockey players, so we have to be careful.”

Not everybody likes the idea.

“The union should not go near this. This is nothing more than a ploy,” said a league insider. “It’s a public relations move in a big way. I just don’t think the union has anything to gain from this.”

There was a belief that by the time the players missed a couple of paycheques -- and most certainly by the American Thanksgiving last week -- some members of the NHLPA would hold a gun to Fehr’s head to get a deal in place.

It’s believed Fehr was pushed by a group of moderate players to table a comprehensive offer — including some high profile — to the owners in New York last week because not every player is prepared to lose the season.

For the most part, the players have held strong. They have offered a better deal to the owners than they currently have, but have refused to accept any risk by linking salaries to revenues which is a big reason why there isn’t a CBA.

“My belief is the expectations of the league going into this negotiation were ridiculous,” said the insider. “This whole thing has been a colossal disaster (for the league), but at this point both sides have to bend.”

That being said, this isn’t great for the players either. The money they don’t get paid every day is something they’re not going to get back. As the calendar turns to December it will be interesting to see where this whole mess leads.

The owners could put pressure on the union by announcing a “drop-dead” date for a season next week. That won’t have the players shaking in their boots, but the word is Roman Hamrlik isn’t the only one who wants to play.

Konopka made no bones about the fact the players want to get back to work. He has been keeping his time card filled with other business ventures, but, first and foremost, he wants to get back on the ice.

“Everyone is frustrated,” said Konopka. “That’s the word of the month, frustration, right?

“I’m a positive guy. I look at it as a half-full, not half-empty. The half-full part of me says we’re going to have a season. You’ve got to stay positive. If you don’t stay positive you’re in trouble. I’ve learned that in life.”

Nobody is positive even though, that if these discussions are held they’re going to lead to a resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with this. I will tell you my reasons.

When the owners agreed to go out and get a salary cap, the players were promised all kinds of concessions to allow it. The NHLPA were given all kinds of goodies.

-57% of the revenue

- UFA age from 30 to 27

-RFA bidding wars.

- 2 years non contract UFAs

- guaranteed buyouts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...