Ghostsof1915 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Wow Bookie, I felt unclean just reading that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shift-4 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 NHL proposal not met with great enthusiasm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lui's Knob Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Wish I still lived in Canada so I could at least go to my WHL games... 10 year season ticket holder here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li'l Fra Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Sad day when greed ruins one of life's best things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleowin Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias 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...
gizmo2337 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 NHL Proposal is here. Didn't see this posted yet. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570&navid=DL|NHL|home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 • 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 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...
Heretic Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.