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

#1951 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:56 AM

The only thing i took away from this thread is that the OP thinks hockey players spend 123,000 on their haircuts. no wonder he thinks this lockout is so detrimental to them

Clearly, he's just another voice that 'has to be heard' since he could have just put this in the CBA/Lockout thread that's already been in full swing for some time. This idea is not new, neither are the (very valid) arguments against it.

The profitable owners are also losing money in this, yet they're likely the power group driving the NHL's offers. Small and non-traditional market teams are also losing potential earnings as their fans bases go back to not caring about hockey. For the owners to not even to be willing to open negotiates prior to an artificial deadline they have set is just plain stupid, and shows how much they care about resolving this on anything but their own terms.

OP, go read the existing thread, you may find yourself enlightened.

Edited by elvis15, 26 October 2012 - 08:56 AM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1952 Monty

Monty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,852 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 26 October 2012 - 08:57 AM

The players are functioning on principle.  Some are already saying that they rather play for the KHL for less because they are tired of the NHL's shenanigans. Based on this premise, yes I do believe that players would choose to not play for the NHL again; however, should another league be created, they may jump on that opportunity, and the fans just may opt to watch their old hockey heroes playing in this new league. Fans come to watch their favourite players and not because of loyalty to the owners/league/team...even the Canucks lost fans when the team was dismantled.


Do you think that maybe players are saying that they would rather play in the KHL to try and put pressure on the owners? I feel for the millionaire players who will never have difficulty financially, I really do. But like the rest of us who work 9-5 jobs, they will soon come to realize that whoever holds the money, holds the power.

Edited by Monty, 26 October 2012 - 08:58 AM.

  • 1

Can you imagine drowning AT a KK Rev concert?

  


i'm pretty sure that's how zombies are born.


#1953 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:12 AM

And does "rationality", in your world, mean just adhering to whatever those smart, trustworthy owners (operating under a gag order by Bettman) deem is fair?


That is not my point. If a person has only six years left where he can make significant money and if his choice is [A] Take a 12% reduction in his pay for the next six years or [B] Lose 1/6th (or 17%) of his remaining income by losing a full year's income with the hope that he will get back to what he had been earning annually for the last five years of his career, then a rational person would choose [A].

Edited by lorentjd, 26 October 2012 - 09:14 AM.

  • 0

#1954 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:17 AM

Look, I don't have much sympathy for either the owners or the players in this dispute. But, if a player in the latter stretch of his career looks at this in a bottom-line (as opposed to an emotional) manner, the choice is pretty obvious.
  • 0

#1955 avelanch

avelanch

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,557 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:21 AM

Look, I don't have much sympathy for either the owners or the players in this dispute. But, if a player in the latter stretch of his career looks at this in a bottom-line (as opposed to an emotional) manner, the choice is pretty obvious.

to quote Botch:

Jason Botchford@botchford
Say sides are $500m apart on 7yr deal. It's $2.3m per owner/yr. Or a LWer. Chicken feed for billionaires. So, how is this worth it to them?


  • 3

#1956 butters

butters

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,374 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:26 AM

The players should agree to play for minimum wage. After all, its more than they are making now.
  • 0

#1957 TimberWolf

TimberWolf

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,398 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:37 AM

The players are functioning on principle. Some are already saying that they rather play for the KHL for less because they are tired of the NHL's shenanigans. Based on this premise, yes I do believe that players would choose to not play for the NHL again; however, should another league be created, they may jump on that opportunity, and the fans just may opt to watch their old hockey heroes playing in this new league. Fans come to watch their favourite players and not because of loyalty to the owners/league/team...even the Canucks lost fans when the team was dismantled.


I have always been a fan of the team before any single player. Any player can be moved at any time for all I care if it makes us better. So please speak for yourself.
  • 0

I was saying Lu-Urns...

star-wars-hockey-goal.gif?w=284

#1958 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 09:45 AM

Again...without the fans/players...there is no revenue stream. Players can organize their own games...there are numerous other arenas they can play at...tix at $20 to watch NHL caliber players compared to watching AHL players at $50 combined with bad PR (the new NHL), I think the fans will be drawn to the players games. The players/fans can do without the NHL...whereas the NHL cannot do without the fans/talent. TBH, I'd be down/fine with folding this whole league and starting all over again..but having a team with our current roster of course in a new league.

It is all a question of degree. The NHL has the admin, the franchise expertise and most importantly the venues. The calibre of play with replacement players might suffer but the reduced payroll costs would give them a hugh benefit. If they went that route they could start cherry picking players back. What % of NHLPA players would stick it out because of principal? I am sure their are many NHL players who feel they make the NHL. They are part of it but not the total answer by any stretch.

The NHLPA is negociating from weakness and should have realized that from 2004. They had an opportunity to merge their interests with the NHL at that time. They hired a new head, Kelly, who seemed to be headed in the right direction. They fired him and hired a gun Mr. Fehr. Who knows what bridges they burnt in that period of '04 to '12? Usually business likes certainty and the NHLPA has not exhibited a lot of that.

The NHL has its own operational issues. They have a business plan that has delivered significant revenue gains but still experiences many unprofitable franchises. The 2004 CBA did not fix the profitabilty issues and their relationship with the players wasn't fixed either. Couching this dispute as a labour vs management conflict will never resolve the problem. IMHO the players at best are sub-franchisees and their interests should coincide with ownership. The fact that the 2004 CBA increased players revenue from $1 billion to $1.8 billion should have triggered more awareness of the potential for all concerned. NHL ownership recognizes players as assets that grow their businesses but they also know that there is more involved in running successful franchises than that.

All this BS aside I still stand by the honouring of existing player contracts. It would take a franchise bankruptcy to alter that. Instead of these two entities fighting over %s they should be determining a framework for sharing revenue which yields healthy businesses. Recognize the players input and recognize that ownership has to have a return on investment. If one of the two cannot agree then the NHL moves to replacement players and the NHLPA can start their own league.

Edited by Boudrias, 26 October 2012 - 09:48 AM.

  • 3

#1959 grandmaster

grandmaster

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,637 posts
  • Joined: 15-April 04

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:18 AM

This season is looking like its gonna be done.

Edited by grandmaster, 26 October 2012 - 10:20 AM.

  • 0

Favorite all time Canuck: Bertuzzi 2002-2003 season
Most clutch all time Canuck: Linden 1994 Stanley Cup Playoffs
Most exciting all time Canuck: Pavel Bure 90's

#1960 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,901 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:38 AM

Is 43-45% of 3.3 billion more than 0 as well? Negotiating is a two way street.
  • 0

#1961 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:40 AM

I think the merge broke :lol:



edit: now fixed :)

Edited by Shift-4, 26 October 2012 - 11:41 AM.

  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#1962 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

That is not my point.  If a person has only six years left where he can make significant money and if his choice is [A] Take a 12% reduction in his pay for the next six years or [B] Lose 1/6th (or 17%) of his remaining income by losing a full year's income with the hope that he will get back to what he had been earning annually for the last five years of his career, then a rational person would choose [A].


However, you are forgetting a key factor, the NHLPA is a union. They aren't bargaining on an individual basis, they are bargaining for the collective group. As an older player near the end of his playing career, he would likely choose to play now instead of losing money. This is his perogative. However, unions typically see the long term. They don't just settle for what is good for a small part of the whole. They want a deal that will favour the majority of members for as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final agreement and how much money is lost in getting the new deal, but that is the breaks of being unionized. Once you are on strike or locked out, it's generally accepted that you will never be able to regain the lost income from being out of work. Taking some short term losses for the benefit of future members is also at play here.
  • 0

#1963 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:36 AM

That is not my point. If a person has only six years left where he can make significant money and if his choice is [A] Take a 12% reduction in his pay for the next six years or [B] Lose 1/6th (or 17%) of his remaining income by losing a full year's income with the hope that he will get back to what he had been earning annually for the last five years of his career, then a rational person would choose [A].


You're just confirming what I've said; that the players aren't greedy, in-it-for-themselves types.

I've agreed with you that it's mathematically in their favour to accept the NHL's offer and suit-up. But it's not that simple. There are more far-reaching consequences at play here. That's why they're not accepting it.

The NHL have proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Look at their first offer. 43%. Then a couple of weeks later, it's up to 50%. This is not a healthy partnership at all. That's why I think it's different this time. The two sides pretty clearly don't like each other.
  • 1

#1964 -Vintage Canuck-

-Vintage Canuck-

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 70,553 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 10

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:41 AM

@GlobeKPD: Once NHL cancels all remaining Nov. games, it leaves prospect of a 60-game schedule, same as 3 seasons, 1946-'49.
  • 0

307mg00.jpg


#1965 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:42 AM

@GlobeKPD: Once NHL cancels all remaining Nov. games, it leaves prospect of a 60-game schedule, same as 3 seasons, 1946-'49.


Which makes for a much more meaningful regular season.
  • 0
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#1966 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 26 October 2012 - 11:47 AM

Is 43-45% of 3.3 billion more than 0 as well? Negotiating is a two way street.


Yes, negotiating is a 2-way street. Now if only the NHL would offer to do any actual negotiating they could finally get started. (Remember, they're the ones turning down offers to get in a room and talk!)

And players don't get a share of all league revenues, only what's included in HRR minus the allowed deductions, but money isn't all the union is fighting for. There are also huge demands being made on players in terms of contract limits and extended UFA service requirement lengths and the entire idea that these titans of business should be held to at least the same business standards as people appearing on Judge Judy.

As a fan, please educate yourself about the issues and think through what's going on. If we yet again tell owners that they don't have to live by the same rules the rest of us do, that they do not have to be held responsible for their bad business decisions (despite record profits amidst one of the worst economies in generations) and that fans will simply help them use public opinion to force players to take responsibility for the consequences of owners' choices, rest assured WE are guaranteeing future lockouts. If you do something that every time gives you benefits and no consequences, wouldn't you keep doing it? Well, the owners will too! As fans it's in our best interest to make it hurt a little for BOTH sides so they understand that what they're fighting over is money we haven't yet given them and they might want to keep us in mind when fighting over how to divvy it up.
  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1967 lorentjd

lorentjd

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 06

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:05 PM

However, you are forgetting a key factor, the NHLPA is a union. They aren't bargaining on an individual basis, they are bargaining for the collective group. As an older player near the end of his playing career, he would likely choose to play now instead of losing money. This is his perogative. However, unions typically see the long term. They don't just settle for what is good for a small part of the whole. They want a deal that will favour the majority of members for as long as possible. Not everyone is going to be happy with the final agreement and how much money is lost in getting the new deal, but that is the breaks of being unionized. Once you are on strike or locked out, it's generally accepted that you will never be able to regain the lost income from being out of work. Taking some short term losses for the benefit of future members is also at play here.


But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.
  • 0

#1968 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:23 PM

But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.

That's where you're wrong. The make whole provision proposed by the NHL offers to pay the players the money they'd lose off their current contracts, but deducts that money out of the player's future share of HRR. That makes the player share of HRR less than 50% - or makes it that they aren't actually protecting the player's contracts at all, pick your poison.

The NHLPA is at least trying to find a solution that meets in the middle, recognizing they can't protect everything they'd like to going forward. If they didn't offer things like actual value of their HRR share holding while revenues are allowed to grow, or holding the owners to the current contracts while understanding the need for better revenue sharing and limits on cap and contracts as they are, then they wouldn't be negotiating. What they don't want to do is just give up all the things they've already been promised.

That's what aggravates a number of the people on here that have been debating this for some time: someone comes along and doesn't read anything from this thread (the one your thread was merged with, rather than your original) and posts something obviously wrong for or against one of the sides. The basis for your argument is using the sound bite version of the NHL's proposal as your evidence.

Here's my post from earlier in this thread:

Bettman offered a deal that looks good only when described via Twitter: 140 characters or less. Once we all got a chance to have the details explained it was clear they weren't offering strictly 50/50 either, just in a different way from how the NHLPA accounted for their 50/50 offer(s).

What Bettman said: "50/50, and we offer to make whole any losses from player contracts."

What Bettman meant: "50/50, but we'll use a part of your future 50% share of HRR to pay for the losses from player contracts."


If you feel strongly enough that you have to create a thread to voice your opinion on something, I'd think it's worthwhile to at least read up on what you want to discuss.

EDIT: for clarity

Edited by elvis15, 26 October 2012 - 12:31 PM.

  • 2

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1969 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,476 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:23 PM

But "bargaining for the benefit of future players" is exactly what the union is NOT doing. The union is willing to go 50-50 for FUTURE players...as long as CURRENT player contracts are protected. Essentially, the union is saying they will agree to a two-tier system.

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.


The union is absolutely trying to make owners honor the spirit at least of the contracts they signed while agreeing to go down to 50/50. However, I don't think it's fair to say that they aren't trying to protect future players for a couple of reasons.

The NHL proposal will use the "make whole" provision simply to delay portions of salaries owed to players who's salaries would put teams above the salary cap until the time when HRR grows sufficiently to allow those payments to be included in the cap. That would basically allow the owners to keep money owed to players for an indefinite amount of time during which they, and not the players that money is owed to, can make money using those funds. It's not unlike a forced interest free loan with an unlimited payback time frame. Also, by adding those contracts back into the cap later, that means players' salaries will not actually grow for years, limiting what players yet to enter the NHL are able to get because the NHL will be able to claim to spend more on salaries when in fact they're just getting around to paying owed salaries from 2 seasons ago.

Furthermore, it's not just money that the union is fighting for, they are also asking the NHL to lower their demands for a whole slew of new restrictions on players in terms of contract term limits, yearly contract growth percent limits, and the amount of time entry level players will have to wait before becoming UFAs. Those are issues, particularly relating to ELCs, that will affect players not yet in the NHL even more than the current union members.

Edited by poetica, 26 October 2012 - 12:26 PM.

  • 1
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#1970 Remy

Remy

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:32 PM

Last page.
  • 0

#1971 Brambojoe

Brambojoe

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:34 PM

You think the NHLPA is taking the position they are taking to protect the livelihood of future union brothers...while the owners are "just greedy"?

Is that why the NHLPA is willing to go 50-50 on league revenue for FUTURE contracts and players as long as the CURRENT players' contracts are honored?

The players are no less (and no more) "greedy" than the owners are...but let's not pretend that the union's objective is "to protect future generations of hockey players".


Holding the owners to their word on contracts will be a benefit to future generations as well. Think of the converse. What impact does it have on future contracts/players if the NHLPA bends over happily this time when the NHL wants to rollback signed contracts. You virtually guaruntee that future contracts will not be honored past a CBA expiry.
  • 1

#1972 Rivera

Rivera

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Joined: 11-September 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:35 PM

Lp
  • 0

#1973 Drive-By Body Pierce

Drive-By Body Pierce

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,000 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 08

Posted 26 October 2012 - 12:56 PM

poetica, elvis,... you two save me a whole lot of typing!
  • 0

Posted Image


#1974 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:12 PM

Neither side of this equation is virtuous...and neither side is "greedy". Each side is simple trying to extract as much from the other side as they can. In this case, I think the players are fighting from a weaker position. That's reality. The sooner they accept that fact (they don't have to LIKE that fact), the better.


Nope. Pretty clearly, the owners are the greedy ones. And, from what the reports suggest, a group of 4 pigs from Boston, Minnesota, Philadelphia, and one other swine that's not coming to me at the moment. It's them who's controlling this whole thing.

The owners locked them out for no other reason than locking them out - NO other reason than greed. Record revenues, record growth. On the precipice of perhaps a major boom in the United States, with the Kings just winning the Cup, the Rangers doing good, the Hawks doing good, the Isles moving to a better market, etc.

The league could've continued on with this season without a CBA, or with a simple 1-year extension during which they could negotiate throughout the year. The NHL - not the PA - didn't want to do that. It's their fault.
  • 0

#1975 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

It is all a question of degree. The NHL has the admin, the franchise expertise and most importantly the venues. The calibre of play with replacement players might suffer but the reduced payroll costs would give them a hugh benefit. If they went that route they could start cherry picking players back. What % of NHLPA players would stick it out because of principal? I am sure their are many NHL players who feel they make the NHL. They are part of it but not the total answer by any stretch.

The NHLPA is negociating from weakness and should have realized that from 2004. They had an opportunity to merge their interests with the NHL at that time. They hired a new head, Kelly, who seemed to be headed in the right direction. They fired him and hired a gun Mr. Fehr. Who knows what bridges they burnt in that period of '04 to '12? Usually business likes certainty and the NHLPA has not exhibited a lot of that.

The NHL has its own operational issues. They have a business plan that has delivered significant revenue gains but still experiences many unprofitable franchises. The 2004 CBA did not fix the profitabilty issues and their relationship with the players wasn't fixed either. Couching this dispute as a labour vs management conflict will never resolve the problem. IMHO the players at best are sub-franchisees and their interests should coincide with ownership. The fact that the 2004 CBA increased players revenue from $1 billion to $1.8 billion should have triggered more awareness of the potential for all concerned. NHL ownership recognizes players as assets that grow their businesses but they also know that there is more involved in running successful franchises than that.

All this BS aside I still stand by the honouring of existing player contracts. It would take a franchise bankruptcy to alter that. Instead of these two entities fighting over %s they should be determining a framework for sharing revenue which yields healthy businesses. Recognize the players input and recognize that ownership has to have a return on investment. If one of the two cannot agree then the NHL moves to replacement players and the NHLPA can start their own league.


This

I dont understand why the NHL cant honor the contracts they have and keep the salary cap at 70mil . Keep it there until that is 50% of revenue and only then start to raise it on a 50/50 split.

this would mean the Owners still take a hit for a couple of years but they can get other concessions to offset this.

The union would have to agree to 5 years max for any new contract and age 28 for ufa age .
  • 0
Posted Image

#1976 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:30 PM

poetica, elvis,... you two save me a whole lot of typing!

Tag, you're it!

But here's a great summary of the recent quotes about the latest offers from both sides and the NHL's deadline yesterday:

NHL Cancels All Games Through November 30

...
"Blame game aside, what’s mystifying to outsiders is that the two sides don’t actually seem to be that far apart. Unlike the 2004-05 lockout, where the owners succeeded in imposing a salary cap system that the players abhorred, there is no vast ideological gulf. Yes, the NHL’s latest proposal for a 50-50 revenue split—down from 57-43 in the just-expired agreement—would see the players’ share reduced by as much as $1.6 billion over the life of the deal. But the NHLPA counter-offers have already indicated its willingness to at least head toward an even split. The fighting is about how soon and by what mechanism. By some estimations, the difference between the parties now stands at $130 million a year—a little less than four per cent of the league’s $3.3 billion in revenue in 2011-12. -Jonathan Gatehouse (who wrote Bettman's biography) via Maclean's.ca."
...


  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

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

 


#1977 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,100 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 26 October 2012 - 01:35 PM

I dont understand why the NHL cant honor the contracts they have and keep the salary cap at 70mil . Keep it there until that is 50% of revenue and only then start to raise it on a 50/50 split.


That only works if revenue continues to climb.

I have a feeling that they may not see the same growth continue (or maybe even some revenue decline) following this little dust up.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1978 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,189 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:04 PM

Mobile
  • 0

#1979 Drybone

Drybone

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,403 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 12

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:26 PM

That only works if revenue continues to climb.

I have a feeling that they may not see the same growth continue (or maybe even some revenue decline) following this little dust up.


Problems with roll back to 50% are enormous.

You get all the revenue earning teams WAY over the salary cap.

You got players now WAY over valued and can never be moved. They are stuck.

So you have to shave everyone salary which becomes legally problematic .

I feel confident the NHL will not suffer from mass deflation over the next decade. I think the easiest thing to do is simply keep the cap and the union give up UFA and contract length concessions.
  • 0
Posted Image

#1980 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,003 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 26 October 2012 - 02:28 PM

Which makes for a much more meaningful regular season.


Yeah I could easily get behind an ongoing regular season of between 60 and 70 games, especially if it meant the playoffs taking place March - mid-May.
  • 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.