RunningWild Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I understand now why this negotiation is stalemate...both parties simply aren't happy with the current situation or proposed situation and kudos to them for holding out until both parties needs are met. How about this...and people have brought up the issue of performance clauses. Instead of decreasing their salary how about going the other way by way of a performance bonus. So here's my proposal: performance bonuses do not count under the cap. This serves several purposes i) player's salaries will not be limited by the cap (something the player's despise) ii) owner's will only pay what the player is worth and not overpay...bad season base pay...good season more pay iii) salaries won't need to be buried in the AHL if the player is underperforming. I also think that if the team is not going to honor the player's new contracts as is, the player should have the option to accept or not accept the "new terms" considering that was not what they had signed up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancity787 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Listening to some people on here is ridiculous. Yeah. The players likely won't accept it. But what you don't know is NBC and HBO have told the NHL that a deal needs to be done or their contracts with both networks are in serious jeopardy. This offer, though it may not be ideal for the players is a STARTING POINT in negotions which will likely bring both sides closer for bargaining sessions in the near future. Is it the greatest proposal ever? No . Is it a starting point? Yes because the NHL had enough balls to come forward and make the first reasonable offer. The PA will likely tinker with the for a day or so and come back with another proposal. Trust me people as bleak as everything seemed 24 hours ago. You have to tip your caps to Bettman and the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrrFour Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Instead of decreasing their salary how about going the other way by way of a performance bonus. So here's my proposal: performance bonuses do not count under the cap. This serves several purposes i) player's salaries will not be limited by the cap (something the player's despise) ii) owner's will only pay what the player is worth and not overpay...bad season base pay...good season more pay iii) salaries won't need to be buried in the AHL if the player is underperforming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cromeslab Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Hmmmf,could this be the beginning of the end............to the lockout! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 So Alex Edler's next contract is the nhl minimum, but if he gets one assist he will receive his performance bonus of $8 million dollars. Sounds great! We have a top dman signed for minimum cap hit. We can go out and sign a couple of free agent power forwards next summer for league minimum too. As a canucks fan I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 So here's my proposal: performance bonuses do not count under the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That would make the cap completely redundant. All the teams that can afford it would sign the top players at the league minimum with easy to achieve bonuses. Not only that, the PA would never agree to it. You could take a guy like Redden, send him to the minors and then he would never be able to achieve any of his bonuses and would make far less money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I don't think a top player would go for league minimum...they would go to the team that would offer them the best deal and for elite players, league minimum would not cut it. If he outplays everyone in the minors and gets called up, he's back in the game but it's up to him to work for it. Under this system, he's simply not going to be a given the big dollars after putting in one good season and get away with not putting in the work for the remainder of his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Not quite what I was going for. Here's a better example... Let's say Crosby & Malkin's deals were coming up. What would stop Pittsburgh (other than their own budget) from re-signing Crosby and Malkin for $2M each with huge performance bonuses in order to free up over $13M in cap space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 A team that would give them a sure salary of $10M a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mauii Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 But that only works if they have the cap space available, and that's what I am trying to get at. Teams could circumvent the cap by colluding with players to give them the pay they want simply by loading the bulk of their pay into easy performance bonuses. We might as well not have a cap then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthMelvin Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 50-50, hmmm if the players dont accept,...then who's greedy~!?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wshdrvvn Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 does anyone else get mad when you see the two turd faces that are holding up the season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 So Alex Edler's next contract is the nhl minimum, but if he gets one assist he will receive his performance bonus of $8 million dollars. Sounds great! We have a top dman signed for minimum cap hit. We can go out and sign a couple of free agent power forwards next summer for league minimum too. As a canucks fan I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Apologies if this has been posted here or somewhere else on the boards already, but I found it to be a fascinating read. Meet the Lockout Lawyers Destroying Sports Currently the sports world is suffering its fourth lockout in the past fourteen months. On four occasions since August 2011, pro sports owners have locked their publicly subsidized stadium doors, sent stadium workers home and stopped play as usual. This is not coincidence or happenstance. It’s a coordinated management offensive that has reverberations far beyond the playing field. Let’s look at the facts. Last fall it was NFL and NBA players locked out of their jobs. This off-season, we first had the NFL referees, who make a pittance relative to the league’s revenue, watching scab refs stumble for three weeks. Now we have the ongoing lockout of National Hockey League players. NHL owners are coming off a year in which they made a record $3.3 billion in revenue. League owners have responded to this success by locking out the players, demanding massive concessions, canceling eighty-two games and squandering reservoirs of good will among fans. I’m sure this must seem like a wild coincidence: four lockouts in fourteen months, affecting three of the four major professional sports leagues of this country. What are the odds? Actually, they’re very good. This is not merely a case of four sets of labor negotiations that have tragically broken down. This is a conscious, industry-wide strategy. A law firm called Proskauer Rose is now representing management in all four major men’s sports leagues, the first time in history one firm has been hired to play such a unified role. In practice, this has meant that in four sets of negotiations with four very different economic issues at play, we get the same results: lockouts and a stack of union complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. It’s been great for owners and awful for players, fans, stadium workers and tax payers. Proskauer Rose partner Howard Ganz represents the NBA and Major League Baseball, and fellow-partner Bob Batterman has led negotiations for the NFL and the NHL. As Sports Business Daily reported, “Batterman and Ganz provide advice on strategy, as well as on issues that can emerge during talks, such as the legality of using replacement players.” In other words, they are the people who scuttle collective bargaining and give word when to bring on the scabs. It was the now-infamous Batterman who was lead negotiator when NHL owners locked out the players in 2005 and canceled the entire season. Ian Pulver, counsel for the NHL Players Association in 2005, said of the lawyer, “Bob Batterman is a hard-nosed, smart management attorney who leaves no stone unturned. He will do his best to attempt to execute the orders of his clients including, but not limited to, breaking unions if necessary.” When Batterman was told of Pulver’s words he said, “I would be proud to have that on my epitaph.” Proskaur Rose’s love affair with corporate power is not confined to representing professional sports owners. They boast on their website of having “one of the world’s pre-eminent private equity practices.” They are Bain, if Bain was smart enough to remain in the shadows. The firm’s other prize clients are a Murderers Row of Big Oil titans including BP America, Chevron, and ExxonMobil. Incidentally, this culture of representing polluters and union busters with pride and without societal concern seems reflected in the firm’s internal culture. Proskauer Rose is now being sued by their former Chief Financial Officer Elly Rosenthal, who accused the law firm of firing her following sixteen years as CFO after she took leave for breast cancer treatment. (Remember Elly Rosenthal the next time you see the NFL festooning its players in pink for Breast Cancer Awareness Month.) Perhaps it’s time we start viewing sports leagues less like family fun and more along the lines of highly scrutinized institutions such as BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil. They have more in common than just their lawyers. Like big oil bosses, pro sports owners love corporate welfare, right-wing politicians and are deeply hostile to union workplaces and collective bargaining. Just as what’s good for ExxonMobil’s stock value—price gouging at the pump, lax environmental enforcement, war in the Middle East—is bad for America; what’s good for pro sports owners is bad for fans, stadium workers and especially taxpayers. Given the context, today’s news that the NHL has hired republican guru of sophistry Frank “let’s call global warming climate change” Luntz to help with their messaging, makes perfect sense. This is a Frank Luntz crowd and its agenda reaches far beyond the world of sports. The number of lockouts, once the third rail of collective bargaining, has doubled since 2010. But you need more than cash reserves to make this the new norm. For management to win a lockout they need to convince the public—and transform the culture—into thinking that lockouts (starving out your workers) is an acceptable practice. No NHL players are starving, of course, but this is about exploiting sports to enforce a new national labor paradigm. Some might think that a good idea would be to pressure the NBA, NFL and NBA to actually fire the lockout lawyers. They might suggest that we start a campaign to insist that the leagues hire negotiators who put the interests of fans and taxpayers at the center of these negotiations. But even if we could successfully disengage Proskauer Rose from our pro sports leagues, NBA and NHL Commissioners David Stern and Gary Bettman have more in common than just the combined five lockouts they’ve overseen in the past thirteen years. They’re also lawyers who used to be partners at a firm called Proskauer Rose. We are confronting our worst nightmare as sports fans: a vampire squid with a law degree attached to every tentacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 But that only works if they have the cap space available, and that's what I am trying to get at. Teams could circumvent the cap by colluding with players to give them the pay they want simply by loading the bulk of their pay into easy performance bonuses. We might as well not have a cap then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woot Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 I guess the Republican PR stratagist the NHL owner's hired is already doing his job. Now everyone's talking about how the player's won't take a "fair" 50-50 split of HRR, not that the league decided to lock out the player's after a year of record-setting revenue, and who's "fair" 50-50 offer demands the players give up 15% of their share, and a bunch of other terrifying concessions. http://aol.sportingnews.com/nhl/story/2012-10-16/nhl-lockout-2012-news-cba-negotiations-owners-offer-hockey-strike-donald-fehr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.