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

#1441 Ghostsof1915

Ghostsof1915

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,241 posts
  • Joined: 31-January 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:30 AM

Wow Bookie, I felt unclean just reading that article. :frantic:
  • 0
GO CANUCKS GO!
"The Canucks did not lose in 1994. They just ran out of time.." Barry MacDonald Team1040

Posted Image

#1442 Li'l Fra

Li'l Fra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 07:38 AM

I know this move is calculated to make the players look greedy when they don't accept the 50/50 split...

And it's working.

Bieksa says in the paper today that he hopes the fans realize the players could be asking for more money.

Uuuuuhhh...

Get real Kevin, and I'm a fan, look at what YOU are making. Look at the money Garrison is making.

You think you guys should be asking for more?

I know the NHLPA can't accept this outright, and I know it's all a negotiation tactic, but the players need to shutup now. No one, no one, has much more patience for watching enomously rich players and owners squabble in public.

Most businesses conduct these negotiotions away from the public eye. Obviously the NHL doesn't have that luxury.

Watching it is interminable. It shines a light on the crudest, most basic, and disgusting characteristics of our species.

Most specifically, but not limited to, greed.

They are all greedy, clamouring for more of a giant money pie, while most families are feeling the pinch of the ongoing recession.

I am not with the players, I'm not with the owners. And anytime either side gets quoted in the press mostly I just feel disgust.
  • 0

#1443 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:21 AM

NHL proposal not met with great enthusiasm:

The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:

- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."

- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."

The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:

- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:

- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.

- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.

- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.

- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.

- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1444 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:33 AM

NHL proposal not met with great enthusiasm:


I just read this too. Though I knew that already when I read Fehr's comment 'this is a good start' (paraphrased).

I am still not optimistic.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#1445 Lui's Knob

Lui's Knob

    Canucks Regular

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:37 AM

Fehr will destroy the season....holding out for more and more. Fans again get fooled and part of the bait. This will be it for fans - will begin to not care and find other things to do after nov 2 if not already

Edited by Here's Johnny, 17 October 2012 - 08:42 AM.

  • 0

#1446 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:48 AM

Wish I still lived in Canada so I could at least go to my WHL games...

10 year season ticket holder here.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1447 Li'l Fra

Li'l Fra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 08:54 AM

Watching lawyers and unionists play their favourite game...big money negotiations and boardroom shenanigans...is a lot less fun than watching hockey.

I remember the glory days of my youth. Blissful childhood memories of hockey cards, shinny on the frozen lake, pretending to be Harold Snepts and Richard Brodeur.

Is this what my innocent passion has led to?

I'm sick of the Bettmans and Fehrs of the world. Money is tiresome.

I'm sick of wondering about Colin Campbell, fairness, favouritism, nepotism, hooking, holding, the trapezoid, delay of game, instigator.

Slaps on the wrist for cheapshot attacks on star players...Duncan Keith.

Hockey is where I go to escape the baloney.

Watching this league stumble around screw up just about everything they try to do is getting annoying.


  • 0

#1448 Nevlach

Nevlach

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,021 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:04 AM

Sad day when greed ruins one of life's best things. :(
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#1449 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,815 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:20 AM

I am not too happy with the provision that would allow teams to exceed the CBA cap in year one, but would have to get under it in year two.

Further, I do not like the proposal's language that indicates that existing player contracts cannot be lowered proportionaly to the decrease in the new salary cap--called a salary rollback. What this means, is that after the 2012-2013 season, teams like the Canucks may have to trade players away just to get under the new salary cap. Further, complicating matters, is that the team will also not be allowed to renegotiate contracts with their existing players.

Smoke and mirrors. This is not a serious offer but a bargaining ploy. I cannot believe that all the owers want to screw their teams up like that.
  • 0

#1450 Shaelon

Shaelon

    Magic Number Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,269 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:38 AM

I am not too happy with the provision that would allow teams to exceed the CBA cap in year one, but would have to get under it in year two.

Further, I do not like the proposal's language that indicates that existing player contracts cannot be lowered proportionaly to the decrease in the new salary cap--called a salary rollback. What this means, is that after the 2012-2013 season, teams like the Canucks may have to trade players away just to get under the new salary cap. Further, complicating matters, is that the team will also not be allowed to renegotiate contracts with their existing players.

Smoke and mirrors. This is not a serious offer but a bargaining ploy. I cannot believe that all the owers want to screw their teams up like that.


If the NHL were to include this provision, then players would not accept because that would mean an immediate roll-back.

Fehr already indicated a 'proposed' 12.3% Salary Roll-back due to HRR dropping to 50%.

What i could see in the counter-offer is: HRR Starting at 52% for the first two years, then 50/50 for Years 3-6 of the deal.

As well, the PA would re-introduce the idea of Taking the extra shares and putting it into a Industry Growth Fund, to fund weaker teams with the Owners pitching in more revenues (Up from the current proposal of +$50 Million).

Contract Lengths: The PA Seems to be the type that would take the limit out, and offer fixed/variable rates (but more flexible, at say 10% the average salary). The Two-Way Standard is not agreed on by the players what-so-ever, (even though it's needed). Maybe, the 'reduced' rate could be 50% of the full contract value rather than some small number that would be <$500 K?

The rest of it seems fine.
  • 0

#1451 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,197 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:42 AM

It's hard for me to be optimistic here. First of all, I don't think the players will accept the deal, and then they'll be back at square one.

Second of all, I don't think this was actually a legitimate offer by the NHL. I have a feeling that there's a bunch of little details included that they know the players will reject. But they got their positive headlines of a 50/50 split, which will seem fair to the average fan. So ultimately if the deal is rejected, the blame will go back on the players.

It was what the NHL discussed in their little focus group. They know a lockout is inevitable, but they don't want to hurt their image. So somehow they have to spin it so that the players are to blame. This is how they accomplish that. And they come off as looking like they want to "preserve" the entire season. When really this lockout has probably been planned for months.

I am hoping for a negociated deal but like yourself not overly optimistic. I think you have an inflated view of what the NHL or the NHLPA think about the fans opinion. The NHL knows the Canadians will be back in their seats no matter what and the AMerican fans, excluding a few markets, have already moved on or weren't serious viewers anyway.

You appear to come down on the players side of this dispute. IMO the players are an expense, the largest expense, in the NHL operation. Either the NHL can operate profitably or not, their decision. It appears their conclusions from 2004 did not stand the test of time over the duration of that deal. The NHL has a lot on the line if they want to continue increasing revenue. There aren't many businesses out there that automatically increase labour's share of revenue other than some sports leagues.

The NHLPA's over riding concern should be HRR and a process verifying accuracy of those numbers. As long as ownership is prepared to share their revenue with the players then HRR is the bottom line. I liked the fact that the NHL proposal would honour existing contracts. To me that was not only ethical but a non negociable deal for the NHLPA.

This whole exercise is as simple as an operating statement that guarantees players a % of revenue and guarantees the owners a return on invested capital. Ownership's share of HRR does not have to equal the players share, after expenses. It could easily be in the 15 - 20% range. Both these items would appear as an expense item. Other operating costs simply limit the % split between the two. AN incentive has to exist for both owners and players to increase revenue and thusly keep the games played. To an extent the rest is window dressing. Whatever other detail is dealt with in operating cost will simply be reflected in added or reduced %'s for players and ownership.

The negative vibes are getting to much for me. Could this latest offer simply be a 'bone' thrown to the media hounds to keep them yapping for another month? :(

Edited by Boudrias, 17 October 2012 - 09:47 AM.

  • 0

#1452 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

NHL Proposal is here. Didn't see this posted yet.
http://www.nhl.com/i...vid=DL|NHL|home
  • 0

#1453 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:02 AM

• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

So, for CHI, Rostislav would count against the cap. This wouldn't include players on ELC the way I read it (based on the 105,000 numer)

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

So if Luongo is traded and then retires, we have to take the CAP back for those remaining years?

Edited by gizmo2337, 17 October 2012 - 10:03 AM.

  • 0

#1454 6of1_halfdozenofother

6of1_halfdozenofother

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Joined: 16-January 06

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:07 AM

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

So if Luongo is traded and then retires, we have to take the CAP back for those remaining years?


That's how I read it. It's apparently to punish those teams that tried to circumvent the last CBA by tacking on those extra years.
  • 0
People who label others as bandwagoners, people who tell other people "how" to cheer for their team, "how" they should act or what they should wear to "support" their team, people who only want to hear positive thoughts and don't want to read about how the team can do better - these are people who are insecure and uncomfortable within their own skin.

I'll support my team the way I choose, thank you very much. You can choose to support your team the way you want to, and I won't judge you on it as long as you don't try to force your beliefs on me. I'll also be quick to point out where I think the team can do better, because identifying that there is a problem is the first step to fixing it; denying or ignoring a problem won't solve anything.

Go Canucks Go.

#1455 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:09 AM

Teams still need to work within the confines of a cap, however, there is the option for both the player and the team to offer a performance bonus. But the performance bonus is not a given, it's only received when it's earned based on set terms, and if the NHL believes the team is trying to circumvent the cap through assured performance bonuses they can do an audit and confirm if performance bonus payment = performance as per the performance clause terms ie. did they meet the set target goals, points, etc.

Team had to work within the confines of a cap in the last CBA as well, and they exploited a loophole with long contract lengths but sharp dropoffs in salary to ensure the players had reasonable cap hits.

That's the point, you can't have something so open to interpretation or it will be exploited and we'll be back in the same boat with the owners complaining they can't afford the rising costs of player salaries and team expenses.

What would a player do. Crosby and Malkin have lost significant time due to injuries. $10 mil guaranteed or $1 mil plus bonuses?

So why would a player even sign that, unless the bonus structure was so high that it was hugely enticing over what they could earn in actual salary? That brings us back to my point above, and why it'd even need to be an option.

________________

Back to the proposal itself, the NHL wanted to highlight the 50/50 part of it and not comment on the rest. They did so intentionally to look good in the press, "We made the first move and that 50/50 is better so the NHLPA will be the ones to look bad when they don't accept it."

Unfortunately, it's not quite that rosy, as some portions do not favour the players at all, and the NHL has even left out parts that would be required in a new CBA, so the deal can't be accepted as is anyway.

The NHLPA will have to concede some of the HRR I think, or else they will end up being the bad guy if that's the main point that prevents a new CBA. So long as there's nothing punitive in the rest of the deal, and those points can be negotiated as reasonable/fair, then they'll have to come down on HRR.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1456 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,696 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:30 AM

Can you imagine just about any other business splitting their revenue 50/50 with their employees?

Would a company like McDonalds do that?

Right....these players tick me off - I want to see the game like it was played in the 70's, 80's and early 90's...when players cared about the crest on their uniform...where they played for the love of the game.

If they reject this latest offer, then I hope the season is a write off - they don't deserve to play nor be watched and cheered on by us fans.
  • 2

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1457 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:43 AM

So with Pinizzotto, Gordon at $275,000 and $550,000 playing in the AHL, we would be charged another $615,000 against the cap (the amount over 105,000) due to the Redden rule?
  • 0

#1458 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

It's definitely a start, but I can see why the players might not be happy with as it does limit their salaries more than the 50/50 split would seem to indicate. And that's been my concern since I heard they made the offer, that the NHL was making a sneaky offer meant to get them the share percentage they actually want while appearing to the uneducated public to be "fair."

Even if what the NHL says is true on their website, that the don't want to renegotiate HRR, only "clarify mutually identified ambiguities," the addition of NHL contracts in the minor leagues being used in the cap is huge. It's essentially a way for owners to claim to spend more on salaries while not actually having to spend anything more than they already are. In fact, that move alone will decrease salaries in the future for players. While on the face, a 50/50 split might look like players are only giving up 7% in reality they'll be giving up more since more people are being considered as receiving part of their share. And it's yet another way players are having to pay for the bad business moves of owners.

The bright sport of their proposal though is the commonsense redefinition of which teams will be eligible for the league revenue sharing. Now all teams, excluding the top 10 teams, will be eligible regardless of market size. That will take a huge burden off the teams that are struggling while keeping that money from putting profit into the pocket of owners of small market teams that report a financial loss every year.

Here's hoping there's enough they can agree to get this deal done.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1459 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:53 AM

*
POPULAR

Can you imagine just about any other business splitting their revenue 50/50 with their employees?

Would a company like McDonalds do that?

Right....these players tick me off - I want to see the game like it was played in the 70's, 80's and early 90's...when players cared about the crest on their uniform...where they played for the love of the game.

If they reject this latest offer, then I hope the season is a write off - they don't deserve to play nor be watched and cheered on by us fans.


This shows your complete ignorance of basic facts of life. I spent years as an HR Director for a company with thousands of employees so I know a little about Labour Relations and what salary share of revenue is for most companies.

1. A service oriented company pays upwards of 70-80% of its TOTAL revenue on employee salary and direct benefits. Macdonalds is likely slightly lower due to how little they pay their employees, but it is certainly well above 60%.

2. 50% of HRR is NOT the same as 50% of total league revenue. The owners are allowed to deduct many expenses before splitting the pot. It is entirely false to suggest that they have to pay all their expenses out of their remaining 43%. Estimates are that the split is actually currently around 50/50 of total revenue when you add that excluded revenue that the players get no part of. Any other type of business where their employees are the actual product would take that split in a heartbeat.

3. I have been involved directly at the bargaining table with a number of large unions. I can read contract language and more importantly read between the lines of what it actually means. I can tell you that every league proposal so far has effectively been the same, they are just using different language and clauses to obscure their intent.

4. In this offer their so called "salary protection" for player's existing contracts sounds great as a title until you read the actual language. It still equals a rollback, and as Fehr stated... later on it promises to make up for lost salary in early years by a formula where teams get to backpay some contracts up to their full value... but oh wait, that backpay STILL counts towards the new player share of 50% on top of current salaries.

5. The over 5 year cap hit clauses and moving of dollars/cap hit are also backdoor ways to lower how much in real dollars is going to players. If you count Souray's salary in the minors to the cap... it lowers what you can pay other players. If you count a retired player's cap hit for years after he is gone... it lowers what you can pay other players.

Edited by Provost, 17 October 2012 - 10:58 AM.

  • 7
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1460 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,477 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 17 October 2012 - 10:54 AM

Can you imagine just about any other business splitting their revenue 50/50 with their employees?

Would a company like McDonalds do that?

Right....these players tick me off - I want to see the game like it was played in the 70's, 80's and early 90's...when players cared about the crest on their uniform...where they played for the love of the game.

If they reject this latest offer, then I hope the season is a write off - they don't deserve to play nor be watched and cheered on by us fans.


Please tell me you understand the HUGE difference between an entertainment industry that makes it money off of not only the talent of these players, but also their names and faces and a fast food joint where no skill is required and where individual employees do not have a direct impact on the bottom line. That's because hamburgers are the product at McDonald's. The players are the product for a hockey team.

Revenue sharing IS standard in entertainment industries. If teams want to make money not only off the work of the players, but also their names and faces they have to pay for that. Without the players, there are no revenues. Why do you think owners are so willing to pay big-name players huge contracts? Because that's where their money comes from!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1461 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,696 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 01:57 PM

This shows your complete ignorance of basic facts of life. I spent years as an HR Director for a company with thousands of employees so I know a little about Labour Relations and what salary share of revenue is for most companies.

1. A service oriented company pays upwards of 70-80% of its TOTAL revenue on employee salary and direct benefits. Macdonalds is likely slightly lower due to how little they pay their employees, but it is certainly well above 60%.

2. 50% of HRR is NOT the same as 50% of total league revenue. The owners are allowed to deduct many expenses before splitting the pot. It is entirely false to suggest that they have to pay all their expenses out of their remaining 43%. Estimates are that the split is actually currently around 50/50 of total revenue when you add that excluded revenue that the players get no part of. Any other type of business where their employees are the actual product would take that split in a heartbeat.

3. I have been involved directly at the bargaining table with a number of large unions. I can read contract language and more importantly read between the lines of what it actually means. I can tell you that every league proposal so far has effectively been the same, they are just using different language and clauses to obscure their intent.

4. In this offer their so called "salary protection" for player's existing contracts sounds great as a title until you read the actual language. It still equals a rollback, and as Fehr stated... later on it promises to make up for lost salary in early years by a formula where teams get to backpay some contracts up to their full value... but oh wait, that backpay STILL counts towards the new player share of 50% on top of current salaries.

5. The over 5 year cap hit clauses and moving of dollars/cap hit are also backdoor ways to lower how much in real dollars is going to players. If you count Souray's salary in the minors to the cap... it lowers what you can pay other players. If you count a retired player's cap hit for years after he is gone... it lowers what you can pay other players.


So...because I don't understand union contracts like you (even though in my youth I helped start a union at a fast food place) I am ignorant to the basic facts of life? Wow...talk about...

You know..it's all about economics...not many people go into a business to lose money.
The owners (and league) are in this to make money - not lose it.

Sorry...my heart does not bleed for the money these players are whining about.

It bleeds for the average person out there struggling to make ends meet.
To those who are directly affected by this lockout - those that have lost their jobs...or have reduced hours...thanks to these players.

Oh...rollback? Really? The rest of us workers are in that same place. You do realize that our economy, though maybe out of the recession, is very fragile?

"Canadians are not doing so well on the issue of net worth, either. While slightly higher, household net worth is below 2008 levels once inflation is taken into account, and income growth has also fallen below the rate of inflation this past year. That means Canadians are poorer and their disposable income is now declining."


Where I work, the guys on my team haven't had an increase in years and we have been told there won't be one next year - even though our numbers are up - and we are profitable. Imagine that - company is making more money but is being cautious as far as sharing the revenue increase.

  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1462 gmen81

gmen81

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,095 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:21 PM

So with Pinizzotto, Gordon at $275,000 and $550,000 playing in the AHL, we would be charged another $615,000 against the cap (the amount over 105,000) due to the Redden rule?


I would think guys on 2 way deals won't count against the cap..


I do think they reach a deal soon. It will take about a week of hard negotiating, but I feel that will come to some sort of compromise.

The only fear I have, is when the players present their counter proposal that it is way off on what the owners originally offered. Then the owners get pissed off and thinks the players aren't being serious with this and pull the offer off the table.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1463 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:43 PM

Team had to work within the confines of a cap in the last CBA as well, and they exploited a loophole with long contract lengths but sharp dropoffs in salary to ensure the players had reasonable cap hits.

That's the point, you can't have something so open to interpretation or it will be exploited and we'll be back in the same boat with the owners complaining they can't afford the rising costs of player salaries and team expenses.

Yes, I've already edited my statement in my 5th post to address this. Granted the owners have a history of finding loopholes and "exploiting" them, I've suggested that the league set out the performance terms ie. 3 options, and the team chooses any of the 3 options or a combination thereof and the higher of 3, etc.

I've proposed this before and it seems someone else touched on it a bit, but I still think the revenue share should be split in 3 be it 42-42-16 with the 16 portion allocated to get teams out of the red. In this way, the bottom teams are addressed and it is a shared responsibility by the whole league, the other teams won't need to give up their portion of the revenue to help the bottom teams, but something has to be thrown in for the players for their reduced revenue share and possibly lower pay, some would say well they get to keep their jobs. They should be so fortunate to be able to negotiate their salary to keep their jobs while others are simply let go in this economy. But still, professional athletes live in a different vortex and their circumstance is different from the average Joe. So my suggestion is this add the performance clause, while the player/team is working within the confines of a cap the player will still have the potential to make more. Also, the league needs to be open and transparent about the HRR, under this formula the players are kicking in to help out the other team. I think the HRR should include all expenses and revenues relating to hockey, including tv deals (considering the bottom teams are taken care of), and this may soften the blow for the players reduced revenue share. Perhaps the HRR is the next to be negotiated. Although, to keep it comprehensive, as previously stated, HRR should include everything then everyone's concerns are covered.

Edited by Mauii, 19 October 2012 - 01:41 AM.

  • 0
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1464 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 17 October 2012 - 02:51 PM

So...because I don't understand union contracts like you (even though in my youth I helped start a union at a fast food place) I am ignorant to the basic facts of life?


It is fine to not know something, and it is even fine to be wrong... I am regularly wrong. But going to the point of inventing false bases for your poorly thought out arguments is ridiculous.

Edited by Provost, 17 October 2012 - 02:51 PM.

  • 2
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1465 J.R.

J.R.

    Rainbow Butt Monkey

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,827 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 08

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:00 PM

So...because I don't understand union contracts like you (even though in my youth I helped start a union at a fast food place) I am ignorant to the basic facts of life? Wow...talk about...

You know..it's all about economics...not many people go into a business to lose money.
The owners (and league) are in this to make money - not lose it.

Sorry...my heart does not bleed for the money these players are whining about.

It bleeds for the average person out there struggling to make ends meet.
To those who are directly affected by this lockout - those that have lost their jobs...or have reduced hours...thanks to these players.

Oh...rollback? Really? The rest of us workers are in that same place. You do realize that our economy, though maybe out of the recession, is very fragile?

"Canadians are not doing so well on the issue of net worth, either. While slightly higher, household net worth is below 2008 levels once inflation is taken into account, and income growth has also fallen below the rate of inflation this past year. That means Canadians are poorer and their disposable income is now declining."


Where I work, the guys on my team haven't had an increase in years and we have been told there won't be one next year - even though our numbers are up - and we are profitable. Imagine that - company is making more money but is being cautious as far as sharing the revenue increase.


So rather than side with the rich players, you side with the even richer owners? :blink: Way to stand up for the "little" guy :rolleyes:

How is one person so misguided about so many things?
  • 0
"Science is like an inoculation against charlatans who would have you believe whatever it is they tell you."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson

Posted ImagePosted Image

#1466 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:05 PM

It is fine to not know something, and it is even fine to be wrong... I am regularly wrong. But going to the point of inventing false bases for your poorly thought out arguments is ridiculous.

Provost...it really is unecessary to attack characters of posters and make presumptions about them. We all come from different backrounds, experiences and opinions. Addressing the points made and making counterpoints and enlightening us would be more effective and productive to this thread.

Edited by Mauii, 17 October 2012 - 03:09 PM.

  • 2
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#1467 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,696 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:13 PM

So rather than side with the rich players, you side with the even richer owners? :blink: Way to stand up for the "little" guy :rolleyes:

How is one person so misguided about so many things?


So rather than contribute to the thread you attack my character - why not just disagree and say you're pro players?

I also never said the owners were right - way to jump to conclusions.

The "little" guy is not the players.
The "little" guy is the Zamboni driver, the concession stand worker, the security guards, the maintenance workers, the retail workers, etc...etc....

This game was way better 1995 and older - as I said in a previous post.

The solution is simple - pay for performance.
  • 0

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#1468 Provost

Provost

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Joined: 05-September 03

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:21 PM

Provost...it really is unecessary to attack characters of posters and make presumptions about them. We all come from different backrounds, experiences and opinions. Addressing the points made and making counterpoints and enlightening us would be more effective and productive to this thread.


I think you should look up the definition of ignorant if you think it is a nasty attack on someone's character:

IGNORANT: Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

In this case it was someone being wilfully ignorant. A simple google of a phrase "how much business revenue goes on salaries" would come up with dozens of sites which give ranges which show 40-80% depending on the business type.

If you look at my posts, I make an effort to do a little research and give content when making posts. I think the quality of the threads would be much better served by people taking a few seconds to check into their made up facts before posting.

Edited by Provost, 17 October 2012 - 03:21 PM.

  • 0
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

#1469 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:25 PM

I would think guys on 2 way deals won't count against the cap..

Sounds to me like indeed players on 2-way will count, so Pinizzotto and Gordon would count.

• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.
  • 0

#1470 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,235 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 17 October 2012 - 03:40 PM

From one union member to the NHLPA union members...dig in your heels fellas. I am 100% behind the players. This latest offer is a joke. Stay solid NHLPA!
  • 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.