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

#1771 playboi19

playboi19

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,330 posts
  • Joined: 15-August 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

Owners leave the current revenue sharing as it is.

57:43 for the players.

But:

-No Guaranteed Contracts
-Players can be cut like the NFL

If we're going to go into a long period of no talks. I'd like for it to go out with a bang, with an offer like this.
  • 0

Subbancopy.jpg


#1772 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:13 PM

Im not sure if this was posted, someone was talking about it on 101.1 earlier this morning. An expert whose name I forget said he had a very strong feeling that we will see hockey by nov 2, and that they will agree possibly as soon as wednesday!

Obviously this is just here-say but its still refreshing to hear.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1773 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,125 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:31 PM

Im not sure if this was posted, someone was talking about it on 101.1 earlier this morning. An expert whose name I forget said he had a very strong feeling that we will see hockey by nov 2, and that they will agree possibly as soon as wednesday!

Obviously this is just here-say but its still refreshing to hear.


David Pratt doesnt qualify as hockey expert
  • 1
Posted Image

#1774 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,711 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:36 PM

David Pratt doesnt qualify as hockey expert


Agreed. But it will be interesting to see how hard the networks lean on the NHL to get a deal done. Whenever a deal is made, I suspect it will be quick and quite a shock.
  • 0

#1775 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 05:39 PM

Here's what we should do here.

- Split the HRR at 53/47 in the 1st year (for the players)

- Move to 50/50 split of the HRR in the 2nd year

- Create a mechanism to pay back the players for salary lost (from the rollback's) at the end of either the 2nd or 3rd year (but make sure the Owner's are actually paying the players, not the players paying players)

- ETC for either 2 years or 3 years

- UFA status at age 28 or 8 years of service

- Develop a revenue sharing program


Not sure if there are any issue's I didn't cover, but does anyone agree/disgree? Opinions?

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 October 2012 - 05:40 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1776 Owen Nolan

Owen Nolan

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,125 posts
  • Joined: 14-July 07

Posted 22 October 2012 - 06:55 PM

@RealKyper: @hnicsimmer "If players voted 2 ratify/reject deal, what's the result"? Simmer I believe its close. That's why I think #dealwillstillhappen
  • 0
Posted Image

#1777 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:00 PM

Here's what we should do here.

- Split the HRR at 53/47 in the 1st year (for the players)

- Move to 50/50 split of the HRR in the 2nd year

- Create a mechanism to pay back the players for salary lost (from the rollback's) at the end of either the 2nd or 3rd year (but make sure the Owner's are actually paying the players, not the players paying players)


I did this calculation and similar idea a little farther back in this thread, and assuming 5% growth, the payback doesn't happen till year 3 or 4 depending on 49/51 or 50/50 split. My proposal needed a way to balance the savings, which I would see as banked money in the first few years and then paid back in the later 3 years. The players still get their money, and savings could be immediate and consistent for the owners.

edit
I proposed 49% for the players as a way to get the owners on board and get closer to the total savings of the NHL offer. The players would get a longer CBA deal (maybe 10 years) and keep a longer contract term limit (7 years)in exchange for higher revenue sharing.

Edited by gizmo2337, 22 October 2012 - 07:05 PM.

  • 0

#1778 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 07:32 PM

I did this calculation and similar idea a little farther back in this thread, and assuming 5% growth, the payback doesn't happen till year 3 or 4 depending on 49/51 or 50/50 split. My proposal needed a way to balance the savings, which I would see as banked money in the first few years and then paid back in the later 3 years. The players still get their money, and savings could be immediate and consistent for the owners.

edit
I proposed 49% for the players as a way to get the owners on board and get closer to the total savings of the NHL offer. The players would get a longer CBA deal (maybe 10 years) and keep a longer contract term limit (7 years)in exchange for higher revenue sharing.


So it would start at 49/51 for the owner's then move to 51/49 for the players? or stay at 50/50.

Cause I don't see anyway the players will move past 50/50 right away, highly unlikely that they will at all, they still want there current contracts to be honoured which if done would have the Share at about 56/44 for the players next year.

I do like what you said (and I said) about sharing later on, if the player's take a minor rollback now, (not to 50/50 right away but close) then work to 50/50 within a year or two, then later on in about year 3 or so, after the league revuene increases at the projected rate, then the owner's can pay the player's back the rollback's.

Then we start on a clean slate with a 50/50 share from there on out.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 22 October 2012 - 07:33 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1779 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:03 PM

Starting at a higher percent share and then working towards 50/50 over the course of a few years, isn't that what a couple of the the NHLPA's proposals offered? To me that sounds the most reasonable and doable. (Even the NHL knows their proposal isn't doable in the first year. That's why they have the cap limit forgiveness for the first year.)

I think the biggest problem is figuring out how to make owners honor the spirit, if not exact dollar amount, of contracts rather than allowing them to put that responsibility on the players. Without having a separate fund that doesn't count against cap, I just don't see how it can be done.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1780 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:23 PM

Smashian, I'll repost, but just this one time because I think my timing was bad. My idea as follows:
====
-players agree to declining percentage over course of CBA until 49% is reached for players
-players HRR remains frozen based on 2012, until growth level allows 49% split
-cap is based on player percentage/30teams for midpoint
-upper cap and lower cap is 8mil above and 12mil below midpoint
-teams exceeding the midpoint pay more into revenue sharing
-teams below cap receive more revenue sharing

with 5% growth, it looks like this with 1.58b savings to owners over course of deal. In order for the players to do this, the teams spending over the midpoint would need to contribute more (escalating tax?) to the lower revenue teams. Teams that are on tighter budget are rewarded for spending within their means (direct savings on players salary and higher revenue sharing).

yr revenue player cut player% owner savings cap mid
2013 3.44b 1.870b 54.3 93m 62m
2014 3.61b 1.870b 51.7 191m 62m
2015 3.80b 1.870b 49.2 294m 62m
2016 3.99b 1.95b 49 319m 65m
2017 4.19b 2.05b 49 335m 68m
2018 4.40b 2.15b 49 352m 72m

Now, what this doesn't address is how the owners get immediate relief in the first three years. Somehow that owner savings needs to be averaged out over the deal while still allowing the players to get their money. Maybe a deferred make whole payment where the players just get that money later?

In order for the players to concede 49%, I think they should be rewarded with a longer deal (10 year), and even more revenue sharing between teams than has been suggested.
  • 1

#1781 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:34 PM

Actually, I think that's a plan they could work with, at least as a great starting point that addresses both sides' issues. (Obviously they'd have to hash out the exact details, particularly relating to team revenue sharing.) I do personally like the idea of higher spending teams paying into the revenue sharing pot and the lower spending teams getting a share from it. Then it's completely on the owners to spend within their means and they're rewarded for doing so.

As you mentioned, I don't think it helps owners in the first year, but if the NHL is correct and growth will continue at 5% per year, it would produce a savings starting in the second year if players' share is hard linked to 2012 revenue numbers.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1782 Sergei Shirokov

Sergei Shirokov

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,544 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:47 PM

Most of the media seem to think the lockout will end by Nov. 2.
  • 0

#1783 G-52

G-52

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 12

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:50 PM

Most of the media seem to think the lockout will end by Nov. 2.


Most of the media are mouth-breathing idiots.
  • 0

Posted Image


#1784 oldnews

oldnews

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,056 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:52 PM

I find it interesting that there is an assumption that 50/50 is a "fair" split.

30 owners sharing 50%
690 player sharing 50%

30 owners sharing 43%
690 players sharing 57%

If you keep in mind that there are 23 times more players than owners, the 50/50 split becomes a mere abstraction of "fairness".

What is assumed is that their collective interests are equal.

In my opinion, contracts entered into freely by GMs and players - that have been negotiated as determined by market demand - is as fair as what is in the end an arbitrary/abstract "50/50" division of revenue. That imo amounts to a collective reneg. It is truly interesting the particular NHL economy. Who else in the market system, other than NHL owners, get to lock out to retroactively attempt to reallocate 'revenue sharing'? What a special economy the NHL has.
If owners want a greater cut of revenue, perhaps they should exercise more discretion in negotiating contracts - let the market determine value - that is commonly called things like the free market and competition - the espoused virtue of capitalism. It is truly interesting the unique take on economics that is the NHL. I understand the reasoning behind imposing limits in CBA negotiations - it's simply fascinating to try to track the "logic" in conventional terms.

Edited by oldnews, 22 October 2012 - 09:09 PM.

  • 0

#1785 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,752 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:53 PM

Most of the media seem to think the lockout will end by Nov. 2.


That would mean that they would have to reach an agreement this week.

And unless the NHL was just bluffing with their quick dismissal of the NHLPA's proposal, I don't see it happening.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#1786 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 08:56 PM

If the players took a "make whole, IOU" from the first few years and got paid back over the last few, there could be balance. If you balance out the owner savings over the course and still honour player contracts, I think everyone wins. The owners would be making a promise upfront to pay existing contracts, and then pay it back after 2-4 years depending on growth rate. Players make it easier to swallow at 49% split. For the players, its not about the percentage split, its about a second pay cut when revenue is growing, and not honouring deals. I don't blame them for that part at all
  • 0

#1787 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:03 PM

And unless the NHL was just bluffing with their quick dismissal of the NHLPA's proposal, I don't see it happening.


Unfortunately, I think you are correct. We are stuck with the stubborn commissioner, owners, and players. If there is any constructive ideas to save the season, lets hear it. Craig Leipold deserves to honour those contracts or get kicked in the nutz (by the entire players union)
  • 1

#1788 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:04 PM

A Make Whole clause would only work if the owners remain on the hook for that salary and that there's a guarantee for players who may leave the league (retirement or injury) for unpaid salary. Even then, though, I don't know if the players will go for it. It's basically a loan as the owners get to keep owed money longer and players then won't get the interest they could have earned on it. Definitely a better option than a rollback though!
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1789 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:28 PM

Even then, though, I don't know if the players will go for it. It's basically a loan as the owners get to keep owed money longer and players then won't get the interest they could have earned on it. Definitely a better option than a rollback though!


Yes, I can see this being a problem as well. Higher income players might be more okay with this than the fourth liners. Maybe work that clause in there somehow too. Players over 3m wait longer, and under 1m get paid sooner...whatever that means. In any event, it would need to be designed to get owners the savings now, the lower income players next, and the higher income players last. All of the balance would come out of revenue growth without formal pay cuts.

Thinking from the higher paid players: ok, ill take a deferred payment, if you take care of business properly for a long time and pay me what you promised. Lets not do this again any time soon.
  • 0

#1790 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,461 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 22 October 2012 - 09:32 PM

Tiered "make whole" might work. Definitely something they should consider.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1791 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 22 October 2012 - 11:16 PM

If the players took a "make whole, IOU" from the first few years and got paid back over the last few, there could be balance. If you balance out the owner savings over the course and still honour player contracts, I think everyone wins. The owners would be making a promise upfront to pay existing contracts, and then pay it back after 2-4 years depending on growth rate. Players make it easier to swallow at 49% split. For the players, its not about the percentage split, its about a second pay cut when revenue is growing, and not honouring deals. I don't blame them for that part at all


I don't think the players would go for 49%, It would have to be 50%, (I know it is only one 1% but that's the way it seems to be)

And good proposal by the way, I liked your revene sharing Idea but I don't know if you ment it is determined by the salary cap of how much money the teams make, because if it's the salary cap then the way you had setup is kinda wrong because..

- Teams that could be over the mid point (that you said would pay toward revenue sharing) could also be a team in need of revenue sharing, like San Jose, they spend to the cap, but apperently they sold out everygame last year and still lost money.

- Then you said teams under it would collect money from the revenue sharing, when some wouldn't been it, case and point Edmonton, they don't spend to the cap, but they make alot of money, so they don't need the revenue sharing.

I just thought I would point that out, I might has mis understood that one part but I thought it was good. You some effort into it and it was a good job.
  • 0

zackass.png


#1792 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 12:04 AM

I would like to relay out my proposal, this time in greater detail: Please Read
=============================================================================
CBA Length: 7 years (2012-13 to 2021-2022 I think if my math is right on that)

#1: Hockey Related Revenue
- HRR starts right away at 52/48 for the players in year 1. (2012-13)
- Then it lowers to 50/50 for the 2nd season (2013-14)
- It stay's at 50/50 for the duration of the CBA
- At the end of the 2014-15 Season, that Mechanism, is used to pay player's back the Salary they lost in the initial Rollback. And this is done years later so that the team's can get the ball rolling at 50/50, start saving money, and hopefully with the help of the Revenue sharing system, they would be making money or atleast staying afloat, and at the end of that time the bottom line will have grown, and there will be money there to pay back the players, then we start from a clean state at 50/50 and now one owe's anyone anything

Here's the layout:
2012/13: 52/48% (for the players).
2013/14: 50/50 Split
2014/15: 50/50 Split (at the end of the year the players are payed back the 7% they lost in the rollback)
2015/16: 50/50 Split from here on out, and no one owns anybody anything.
2016/17 - 2021/2022: 50/50 split all the way through.


#2 Revenue Sharing System

The big market clubs (New York, Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto) The teams that are succeeding and making alot of money each year, pay out a % of there collected revenue for the season to the system then it is dispersed to the teams that need it. (im not sure what that % is yet, I have to look at what is being discussed)

- Hopefully this will offer support to those teams, so they can stay afloat till there teams become successful and make money, (although some of the teams shouldn't be in the places they are in)


#3 Player Contracting Rights/Arbitration and so-on

- The UFA Status is changed to 28 or 8 years of service
- Arbitration remains
- Contracts are put at a maximum length of at 6 years
- the cap hit remains the same throughout
- No front loaded contracts, the Salary (not including bonus's) must remain the same throughout the duration of the deal

Entry Level contracts (I made this it's own mini-topic cause I have a new idea for this that owners may like)

- There are 2 Entry Level type contracts.
- The initial entry level contract is two years, and the highest possible Salary and Cap Hit is 1 Million.
- The second is for 3 years, it more like a bridge contract, and the max Salary and Cap Hit is 2.5 Million
- Bonus's are at the most 750k and 50% of what the bonus is, is added onto the cap hit.

Reasoning for this:
I think I heard something that owner's didn't like to have to commit the money for 3 years to certain players that they aren't 100% sure about, yet they also want it to be a 4 years in some cases so they don't have to pay a fortune to these young star's right away. This gives them the best of both worlds, they sign player to the 2 year one right away, then if they want them to remain apart of the team they sign them to the next "bridge" contract.

and the players do get a decent raise, in between. if they sign there 1st ELC at 18 after being drafted, they will qualify for the 2nd one at 20, and by the time they are 23 they will be able to qualify for regular RFA and will get paid accordingly.

For Free Agent Signings, that are 21 or under it is the same thing, if you are 22 or older you immediately qualify for the 2nd ELC, the "Bridge contract" as I call it.


Trading Cap Circumventing Contracts

Someone earlier (Provost) talked about when you trade say Luongo (for example), we would still have to pay half Luongo's Cap hit, when we trade him, and I think it is a good idea. It makes team pay a little bit without going overboard.

when you make a deal, with say Florida we would trade Luongo and we would half to hold onto half of his cap hit since the deal circumvented the cap, and if they traded us Upshall in return, they would part part of his Cap Hit because I think his did too.

- The idea that these long front loaded deal's should remain on the cap after they retire shouldn't happen because it was within the rules of the previous CBA to do that, the owner's signed it and ultimately it's there fault, GM's (and owner's) do whatever it takes and that's part of it.

There might have been some stuff I missed out, so leave feedback on it, let me know what you think about these ideas.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 23 October 2012 - 12:10 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#1793 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 69,155 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 23 October 2012 - 07:58 AM

Still no talks scheduled ahead of Thursday's deadline to save an 82-game season:

If the NHL is going to have a full 82-game season something major is going to have to happen over the next couple of days. And it doesn't appear to be on the horizon.

As of Tuesday morning there are no additional talks scheduled between the two sides as they continue to stare each other down after last weeks series of meetings resulted in an exchange of proposals, but no agreement. The talks ended on Thursday when the league rejected a series of NHLPA offers within a matter of minutes.

For a full season to be salvaged (it would in theory start on Nov. 2 after a one week training camp, according to the NHL's latest proposal) a deal has to be completed by Thursday, Oct. 25. The league has already said that any delay beyond that could result in the cancellation of signature events on the regular season schedule.

"I'm not sure there is any reason to meet if there is nothing new to say," said NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly in an email to the Canadian Press on Monday.

"Our position was communicated to the union pretty clearly last Tuesday and then again on Thursday. If they have a desire to meet with regard to the proposal we have on the table, they know how to reach us."

According to Sportsnet's Michael Grange, the NHL has yet to hear from the NHLPA. The NHL left Thursday's meetings after the players presented them with a series of offers in response to the league's latest proposal (detailed here) on Tuesday.

The offers from both sides involved 50-50 revenue splits, but the NHL wants that split to start immediately while the players offers would have seen the split gradually drop down to 50-50 over the course of the agreement. The players are also insisting that all current contracts be honored.

The NHLPA is also upset that the league gave general managers an opportunity to speak with players about its latest offer without informing the NHLPA about it.

Here's what NHLPA special counsel Steve Fehr had to say on that matter, via Renaud Lavoie of RDS:

"Most owners are not allowed to attend bargaining meetings. No owners are allowed to speak to the media about the bargaining. It is interesting that they are secretly unleashed to talk to the players about the meetings the players can attend, but the owners cannot."

At this point a full season seems like it's nothing more than a pipe dream.

The league has already cancelled the regular season schedule through Nov. 1 which has taken away 135 games. If a new deal is reached by Thursday those games would be rescheduled.


http://www.cbssports...ursday-deadline
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1794 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 08:59 AM

Here's the layout:
2012/13: 52/48% (for the players).
2013/14: 50/50 Split
2014/15: 50/50 Split (at the end of the year the players are payed back the 7% they lost in the rollback)
2015/16: 50/50 Split from here on out, and no one owns anybody anything.
2016/17 - 2021/2022: 50/50 split all the way through.


Question is, where does the money come from that pays the players back? From the owners pocket? imo, it probably needs to come from the future growth pool somehow.

Edited by gizmo2337, 23 October 2012 - 08:59 AM.

  • 0

#1795 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

And good proposal by the way, I liked your revene sharing Idea but I don't know if you ment it is determined by the salary cap of how much money the teams make, because if it's the salary cap then the way you had setup is kinda wrong because..


I wanted to link spending above the midpoint to revenue sharing tax to encourage good business sense. For instance, if San Jose is losing money, then why the heck are they spending to the cap limit?!! Understood it could go the other way too where a team like NYR would be below the midpoint and get revenue sharing (well not after the Redden rule kicks in).

Teams like VAN,BOS,PHI,CGY,CHI,MTL,TOR should be happy enough to contribute more to revenue pool for the option to spend to upper cap limit. If they don't like it, then just reduce the roster spending a bit. My gut feeling says they would spend to the cap limit every time.

Right now according to capgeek: PHX,NYI,OTT,DAL,STL,FLA,COL,NSH,ANA,NJD,WPG,CLB,CAR,PIT,DET are below that midpoint roughly. Seems like a good starting point to receive revenue sharing.

Perhaps it should be a formula that combines (total revenue, profit level, cap spending).

For instance, I would frown upon on a team like phoenix spending to the cap limit, having little revenue, negative profit margin. In that sort of case, maybe they shouldn't get revenue sharing due to bad business sense? Alternatively, if they spent closer to the cap floor, give them higher % revenue sharing.

Curious to hear more ideas on revenue sharing split. What's a fair system for all owners that encourages good business sense?

Edit
Would also like to see "making the playoffs" a factor in receiving revenue sharing for the bottom teams. A team managed well near the cap floor like Phoenix and Florida can make the playoffs and should get more somehow.

Edited by gizmo2337, 23 October 2012 - 09:19 AM.

  • 0

#1796 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,713 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 09:57 AM

Lol why are you guys spending time making proposals, not like they're going to read them.
  • 1

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#1797 Sanj

Sanj

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 726 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 09

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

Lol why are you guys spending time making proposals, not like they're going to read them.


You never know! Maybe one day a player will come on the boards just for some funny reading and he'll see this thread and think wow maybe I will present this to Fehr.......oh who am I kidding you're right.
  • 0

#1798 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

Lol why are you guys spending time making proposals, not like they're going to read them.


lol++;


  • 0

#1799 zombieksa

zombieksa

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,961 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 11

Posted 23 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

Question is, where does the money come from that pays the players back? From the owners pocket? imo, it probably needs to come from the future growth pool somehow.


It could come directly from the portion of revenue directed to each franchise with an expansion in 2014 or 15. Its probably going to happen and it could bring over a billion dollars into the league.
  • 0
"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."
-Edgar Allen Poe

#1800 jmfaminoff

jmfaminoff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,808 posts
  • Joined: 21-February 05

Posted 23 October 2012 - 11:28 AM

I feel for the players. The owners are not bargaining in good faith.
  • 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.