Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 3 votes

*Official* CBA Negotiations and Lockout Thread


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
6226 replies to this topic

#601 sQuish

sQuish

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:05 PM

Question was answered further down.

Edited by sQuish, 04 September 2012 - 04:21 PM.


#602 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 77,623 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:39 PM

Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”:

There won't be a lockout.


Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04.


That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down.


All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts.


Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie


The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share.


A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners.

Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past.


Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership.


He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director.


Role of agents?


In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr.

Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails.


I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.


http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html

Edited by -Vintage Canuck-, 04 September 2012 - 12:40 PM.

307mg00.jpg


#603 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,469 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:32 PM

Every team can pay players anywhere between 54M and 70M. The players are employee's not partners. Why should an owner that is selling out every game have to split money with a team that isn't even drawing 8 000 a game? In Vancouver's case we have 18 000+ potentional people buying food and drinks every game, unlike other cities that have to give 4 tickets,4 hot dogs and 4 pops for $99 just to get people in the building. Why would an owner that is losing money want to change anything if he is going to get money from the league to possibly break even every year? Screw the players, they make enough as is, lets see what kind of job they can get other then hockey out in the real world and see how much they make. Bring in replacement players if the players complain they can't live on an average of 2.2M a year.


Watch how fast I cancel my seasons tickets if they make me pay for that!

Speaking of which, how will the canucks handle payments seasons tickets holders have already paid should the season not happen. It's safe to say that at least the preseason being toast is a given when can I expect that money back?

#604 ronthecivil

ronthecivil

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,469 posts
  • Joined: 18-August 05

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:37 PM

Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”:

There won't be a lockout.


Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04.


That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down.


All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts.


Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie


The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share.


A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners.

Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past.


Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership.


He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director.


Role of agents?


In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr.

Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails.


I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.


http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html



No way in hell the owners make a deal. Some of the owners could care less if there's a season at all. Others would be more than happy to see it start at Christmas. Put those together and you have a large majority (aka all but the Canadian teams plus maybe one or two more) who wouldn't dream of signing an agreement if they think they can get even the same deal in December. That's why your seeing the super lowball offers - they could care less if the players sign on or not.

The only question is that when Christmas rolls around the players figure it's not worth playing half a season when they have alternate gigs in Europe and for the most part are already multimillionaire and decide to stick it the owner and play hardball right back when December rolls around. That's what's going to decide if there's a season at all......

#605 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,211 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:51 PM

Q: How exactly does the player revenue sharing system work? In the current CBA, the players receive 57% of revenue. 2011-2012 revenue was about 3.3 billion. Does this mean that after the season 1.88 billion gets distributed evenly to all players in addition to their regular contracted salary? (e.g. let's say there are about 1000 members, each player get an additional $181,000?)

So if they're talking about reducing that to 46% in the NHL's latest proposal... the players would instead receive 1.518 billion, which divided by 1000 players is $151,800. Are these people really arguing about getting an additional 30 grand each season, when they're making MILLIONS???


No.

The players' combined salaries add up to 57% of the league's total revenues. The proposal is to reduce that percentage.

Basically, with 23 man rosters there are 690 NHL jobs available. League revenues are at $3.3B, that would mean the average salary would be about $2.7M (at 57%). If you reduce the players' share to 46%, the average would be about $2.2M.

Revenue sharing is referring to how the teams that make money share with the teams that don't make money to try and ensure a level playing field.
Posted Image

#606 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,883 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:37 PM

The owners originally asked for twice as much as they wanted, hoping to meet half-way.

Example: Players currently get 57%. Owners want it to be 50/50. So double the difference, and you get?...43%.

Fehr didn't even really repond to that though.

Edited by D-Money, 04 September 2012 - 03:38 PM.

Posted Image

#607 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:09 PM

One thing we know for certain : 11 days until the CBA expires

#608 sQuish

sQuish

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,325 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04

Posted 04 September 2012 - 04:20 PM

No.

The players' combined salaries add up to 57% of the league's total revenues. The proposal is to reduce that percentage.

Basically, with 23 man rosters there are 690 NHL jobs available. League revenues are at $3.3B, that would mean the average salary would be about $2.7M (at 57%). If you reduce the players' share to 46%, the average would be about $2.2M.

Revenue sharing is referring to how the teams that make money share with the teams that don't make money to try and ensure a level playing field.


Gotcha, makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.

#609 canuckelhead70

canuckelhead70

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 609 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 12

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:18 PM

Watch how fast I cancel my seasons tickets if they make me pay for that!

Speaking of which, how will the canucks handle payments seasons tickets holders have already paid should the season not happen. It's safe to say that at least the preseason being toast is a given when can I expect that money back?


I believe the club will hold onto your money until the season is cancelled then refund your money. If the season is delayed they would retro activate your account for games missed. Not sure how the Canucks do it but Buffalo you pay in installments usually monthly, again money would be applied to games remaining if it's a short season.

#610 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,776 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:16 PM

Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”:

There won't be a lockout.


Seven years ago, the owners held a powerful upper hand. And more important, the issues were different. Gary Bettman wisely hired Arthur Levitt, the former Chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to produce an audit showing the NHL lost $232 million US in 2003-04.


That gave Bettman public support and believability. The owners were told by their agent, the NHL commissioner, that they could gain a $1 billion with a new CBA and they certainly faced the prospect of losing money if they ran a season. It was an easy decision to shut down.


All Bettman is after in this negotiation is to do what both the NFL and NBA did and trim the players’ percentage of revenues. With the wonderful growth since the last CBA, the players now earn 57 per cent of hockey-related revenues (HRR) and have been getting larger absolute dollar amounts.


Smaller percentage of a shrinking pie


The NFL and NBA sliced the players take, and Bettman wants to achieve a similar deal. In simplest terms, he’s out for 50/50, with a few alterations in the definition of HRR – which would further chisel the players’ share.


A smaller percentage of a shrinking pie. He'd like the free agency and arbitration concessions from the last CBA to go and to limit contracts to five years in length. In addition, the owners propose not tying the cap amount to a percentage of revenues, suggesting players receive $58 million, then $60 million then $62 million before tying the cap to revenues over the last three years of the deal. This too would grab back cash for the owners.

Lastly, Bettman's offer to split any revenue growth beyond 10 per cent equally with the players is shrewd, because by redefining HRR, it’s unlikely the growth rate will be larger than in years past.


Don Fehr's response was in the realm of Bettman's hiring of Levitt. Instead of countering the NHL offer, he created an alternative mechanism to slow the growth in absolute amount of pay over the first three years of the new CBA. Not a cut or reduction in pay, just a slowing of growth in pay, thus reducing what the players would have received at 57 per cent, a concession to ownership.


He also suggests a revenue-sharing kitty, distributed by the commissioner to assist weak teams. Fehr is saying the players gave the NHL what it needed in 2005, a cap, a rollback on salaries of 24 per cent, and that the gains the players made on contract structuring are off the table. That's very Marvin Miller. Contract structure always trumped dollars for Millar, the former MLBPA executive director.


Role of agents?


In 2004-05, the player agents were all over the map in their bid to outflank their own leadership, and I always felt they played a divisive role which busted that union. They’re not really sending great signals this time either. By signing veteran players to long deals, they’re indicating they believe the owners will win and that they only stand to make less in a new deal. It doesn’t matter. And these agents will not tangle with Fehr.

Times have changed. The owners face losing 7.1 per cent revenue growth and the profits that entails.


I want to thank Rod Fort, economics professor at University of Michigan, as always for his guiding hand in dissecting the game we're in. As Fort points out, Fehr has been in precisely this position many times at the MLBPA. Every time the PA stood its ground, there was never a lockout. The wildcard would be player solidarity. Fehr will keep them in check, and Bettman will make a deal.


http://www.cbc.ca/sp...on-maclean.html



That's a pretty strong assumption by Maclean, and the players did stand their ground during the last lockout at first they said they'd NEVER accept a cap. That's why the lockout went for as long as it did. So I think his argument doesn't hold a lot of water.
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#611 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,592 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:19 PM

No way in hell the owners make a deal. Some of the owners could care less if there's a season at all. Others would be more than happy to see it start at Christmas. Put those together and you have a large majority (aka all but the Canadian teams plus maybe one or two more) who wouldn't dream of signing an agreement if they think they can get even the same deal in December. That's why your seeing the super lowball offers - they could care less if the players sign on or not.

The only question is that when Christmas rolls around the players figure it's not worth playing half a season when they have alternate gigs in Europe and for the most part are already multimillionaire and decide to stick it the owner and play hardball right back when December rolls around. That's what's going to decide if there's a season at all......


The owners are lowballing because they know they're in deep just by making a fuss about the deal that was everything they wanted. They're trying to show strength by acting as though they could just have another lockout. They can't. Their real monetary situation is good but gets bad as soon as there is no hockey. The NHL doesn't need every team to be in the black for the league to be peachy. Expansion teams were not meant to make money in the classic "sell tickets and beer" model of business. They were meant to grow the league's exposure. As the league grew, TV deals started to grow as well. Advertising dollars increased. For "struggling" teams owned by the NHL, merchandise and ticket sales were only there to help cover some of the costs. But the league and its series of teams which had not been sold were still making plenty of money.

There is a second way the teams are making money that doesn't show up in the books either, appreciation. Teams gain value as they gain a fanbase, future revenues become more certain and can be sold. Usually the purchase makes sense as an owner can be enticed by the same business model of "grow the team's value, take a cut of TV and ad money and use ticket sales to cover most of the costs". If you average the appreciation in value of a sale over all the years the team was running since its last change in ownership, you end up WAY in the black. It just doesn't appear on the books until the sale is made, so the NHL says "This team makes no money!" then suddenly sell it for a huge profit. Owners buy teams looking for an investment. NHL teams are just like flipping houses for billionaires.

So yeah, the owners have PLENTY to lose if there's a lockout.

Keswho.jpg


#612 samurai

samurai

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,377 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 06

Posted 04 September 2012 - 09:14 PM

There will be a lock out and I suspect it could be long.

As of last Friday the NHL said it has nothing to say because it can't until the players respond to the proposal. The players have said that the NHL took a recess and are waiting for them to get back to them (Bettman said the NHL did not request a recess just that there is nothing to talk about).

I am not really sure of what to make of Fehr. My feeling is that he has built a discourse that the players have almost religiously bought into, but the NHL as 'the house' are refusing to use the language or framework. The players may have gotten themselves the smartest guy in the room, but he doesn't seem to want to negotiate within the discourse and parameters that the NHL is insisting upon. This seems a rather dumb move by the players and Fehr because at the end of the day the NHL will have its way. The house always wins in the end. I have been involved in union negotiations and the people that sign the pay forms have a lot of leverage.

My view is that Fehr's approach is miss timed, first something as radical as it is, should be done a lot earlier and not necessarily during collective bargaining. Perhaps he knows what he is doing but it seems to me that the NHL will not accept his proposal and therefore he has backed the players into a situation where they are going to have to abandon the thing they see as brilliant. I could see something like the NHL agreeing to give the ideas more consideration down the road (face saving for the players)and in exchange for entering the parameters of how the NHL wants things done. If Fehr is as smart as people thinks he is he is going to tell his players that they will have to take cuts or lose salary and the season and then like before settle for the cuts. I will be thoroughly impressed with him if he can do that. Players salaries will be cut whether it is this week next or 2 years from now. Fehr's game has been called.

For Bettman as much as i am not a fan I do think his position as he has stated is quite clear - we want more money and we are willing to meet somewhere in the middle with the players. If i had to negotiate against one of these two I would take Bettman because he seems to want to get a deal done now and realizes that he needs to do it in a fair and as painless a manner. Fehr is trying to be too clever .

http://video.forbes....valuations-2011

Edited by samurai, 05 September 2012 - 01:51 AM.


#613 Mr.Habitat

Mr.Habitat

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,717 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 03

Posted 05 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

Talks on again?

http://blogs.edmonto...ts-peter-adler/

#614 ErnieVan

ErnieVan

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 10

Posted 05 September 2012 - 12:36 PM

I’m putting this in this thread I hope it makes sense to you.

I’ve been listening to the commentators and experts all talking about what will happen if the CAP goes down as the NHL wants to make it $58M next year then each year after to $60M, $62M, $64.2M, $67.6M and in the last year $71.1M.

They have said that teams will have to dump salary, move contracts to AHL or have some one time buyout plan. But none of this makes any sense to me. First the NHL told teams to spend to the $70M CAP, why would they then penalize those teams?

I did some quick math and there are 16 teams over the $58M CAP (Boston, Minnesota, Vancouver, Calgary, Philadelphia, San Jose, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Edmonton, Chicago, Los Angles, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Washington, and New York Rangers) for a combined $87.88M over the CAP. The remaining 14 teams are under the CAP by $60.71M. So if the bottom teams took on those salaries there would be a short fall of $27.17M which would have to be bought out or moved to somewhere else (like the AHL). That number seems doable except that the bottom 8 Teams (Colorado, Florida, St. Louis, Dallas, Winnipeg, New York Islanders and Phoenix = $51.49M under CAP) don’t spend to the CAP in most cases they only spend to the CAP floor. So if those teams won’t spend more that leaves 6 teams (Columbus, Carolina, Detroit, New Jersey, Anaheim, and Nashville) with only $9.22M ($60.71M - $51.49M =$9.22M) in available CAP space. That means that $78.66M would have to be bought out or moved. That just doesn’t make any sense!

In case I lost you in the math here’s a complete breakdown:
16 Teams over $87.88M
Next 6 Teams under $9.22M
Bottom 8 Teams under $51.49M
Total for the bottom 14 teams under $60.71M
Total 16 teams over minus the total 14 teams under ($87.88M - $60.71M = $27.17M)
Total 16 teams over minus the next 6 teams under ($87.88 - $9.22 = $78.66M)


There is no way that the majority of teams can accept the loss of so many players or that the NHLPA would agree to have so many veteran players (the major or the salaries would have to come from older players on larger contracts) to lose their jobs or play in the AHL.

So here is what I think the NHL has to do. The CAP is going down by 17% so why not adjust all players CAP hits by 17%. This would only apply to contracts signed under the old CBA. This doesn’t change what the player’s salaries are just their CAP hits. New contracts would be whatever is in the new CBA. Now the only question is this a onetime only or do you adjust these CAP hits each year? So in 2013-14 it would be 14%, then 11.4%, 8%, 3% and finally back to their original CAP hit.

So for example let’s take Kesler at $5M and Garrison at $4.6M CAP hits:

2012-13 13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18
Ryan $4.15M $4.3M $4.43M $4.6M
Jason $3.818M $3.96M $4.08M $4.23 $4.46 $4.6

This seems to me to be the simplest solution and fairest. It allows GMs to be able to spend knowing what their CAP hits are and what room they have in the future.

Anyway that’s how I think it should be sorted out. What do you think?

#615 VegasCanuck

VegasCanuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 06

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:09 PM

Okay, let's get to the fastest and simplest way of resolving the CBA and avoiding another lockout.

We get both sides together and into the board room with LOTS of Coffee (maybe laced with a little herbal laxative)

We then lock the doors and refuse to open them for bathroom breaks until they can slide at least a signed letter of understanding under the door.

I'd expect the whole process to take about 3 - 4 hours depending on how strong the laxative is!

:emot-parrot:

#616 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,647 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:09 PM

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.

#617 VegasCanuck

VegasCanuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 06

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:30 PM

Seriously, if they were to do a 3 - 4 year roll back on % of the cap allocated to the PA (NHL would probably go for this as it meets their objectives) Do a 1.5% reduction first year, 2.5% second year, 2% third year and 1% fourth year. That would bring them back down to 50/50 on revenue split and its not likely that anyone would be reduced in salary as league revenue will continue to grow and likely outpace those reductions. I think the average has been over 3% growth.

Make entry level contract 4 years and cap the amount of bonus money that they can receive

Continue to allow lifetime contracts but require them to expire before 36th birthday and last year can not be less than 50% of combined first year bonus and salary.

After 35, 2 year maximum contract length.

That should fix most of the outstanding issues.

#618 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,883 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 September 2012 - 03:59 PM

Ron MacLean Says “There Won’t Be A Lockout”:


Oh crap... ...there's gonna be a lockout for sure.
Posted Image

#619 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,143 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 12:27 PM

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.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#620 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: 13-May 10

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:32 PM

Informal letters going around from league and nhlpa... Let the lockout of the year begin!!! Watch the losses and fans vanish over the coming months

#621 ErnieVan

ErnieVan

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 10

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:38 PM

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.


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.

#622 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,883 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 06 September 2012 - 01:57 PM

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.


Nope - the proposal is salaries AND caphits would be rolled back. Same as what happened after the lockout.

Rolling back the cap number without touching the individual cap hits was never proposed - nor will it be, because the suggestion is ridiculous.
Posted Image

#623 gurn

gurn

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,647 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:42 PM

"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?

#624 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:53 PM

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.


If you were a player you would not be able to sue. You would be part of a union and you would have to abide by the negotiated CBA or take you talents to another league.

Which league you take your talent to would also not be your free will as there are negotiated agreements between the different leagues regarding contracted players.

#625 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,812 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 03:55 PM

subsitute hockey for beer and tv and this is how i feel


I think it's rad when balls beats natural talent

Shaun Palmer

 

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi


#626 Rudy Boone

Rudy Boone

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 11

Posted 06 September 2012 - 05:05 PM

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..........

Edited by Rudy Boone, 06 September 2012 - 05:06 PM.


#627 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,143 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 06 September 2012 - 05:14 PM

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.


I made it out to be a question so you would be less embarrassed. See D-money's response.

Anyone that read your original post got the impression that you were proposing a rollback which has always been the case... and it's not an acceptable solution for the players who effectively have their pay reduced.

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#628 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:13 AM

http://www.nhl.com/i...s.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.


Edited by Neufy161, 07 September 2012 - 11:14 AM.

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>


#629 Eh! Team

Eh! Team

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 63 posts
  • Joined: 16-March 12

Posted 07 September 2012 - 11:55 AM

Well on the plus side if there is a lockout we have a chance at McKinnon.

#630 Neufy161

Neufy161

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 616 posts
  • Joined: 01-August 11

Posted 07 September 2012 - 12:22 PM

Well on the plus side if there is a lockout we have a chance at McKinnon.

That would be so sick

Oh hello Alain Vigneault, I see what you did there... good one.

Posted Image

Signature by (>'-')>





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.