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

#2311 Trebreh

Trebreh

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,757 posts
  • Joined: 02-April 07

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

@RenLavoieRDS
Next NHL CBA talks will be in NY this week. Probably not before Tuesday. Positive ? We'll see, but better than the last 2 weeks ? Yes


Was hoping when i got up this morning to find out NHL is back :(

Oh man i hope thats the last meeting they'll have because i cant take this waiting crap anymore..

Edited by Han Damhuis, 04 November 2012 - 06:25 PM.

  • 0

#2312 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

Because then you don't have the parity that Bettman and co have tried to implement.

There's no way the struggling teams can compete with the wealthy teams if you allow them to spend that much more money.


Yes, I agree. The parity argument holds for the soft cap very well. If they want parity, then the cap needs to be closer, not farther apart.

If you don't bring in that retirement rule with cap hit going back to the signing team, I'm calling Tim Thomas and a 2nd to the NYI for a bag of pucks. Heck, NYI would probably call Thomas out of retirement at the deadline and trade him to the TBL for another 2nd. We should call this "The Wang rule" lol. Or how about Redden + 2nd to NYI for Visnovsky (edit. at trade deadline). The new CBA will change the way trades are done. Capgeek is going to have to hire a bunch of software guys to re-do the calculator when all is said and done.

Edited by gizmo2337, 04 November 2012 - 07:05 PM.

  • 0

#2313 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:20 PM

Even some owners don’t like what’s under the cap in NHL labour dispute


The NHL owners and players may be back at the bargaining table, with the major issue of a 50-50 revenue split complete with fully paying existing contracts in sight, but trouble looms from a couple of surprising groups on each side of the labour divide.

At issue are two changes from the former collective agreement in what goes into the salary cap, in particular the payroll floor. In his last offer, before the previous round of talks broke off on Oct. 18, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said teams would no longer be allowed to count player bonus money on their payroll in order to get to the floor. He also proposed all player salaries above $105,000 (all currency U.S.), even those on a team’s minor-league roster, would now be included under the salary cap.

This alarmed two groups. One is a lot of NHL owners, many of whom were considered moderates, who are not happy that under this proposal they could no longer include on their payroll bonus money that would likely never be paid in order to get to the salary floor, which was $48.3-million in the 2011-12 season. This means they will have to pay real cash to get to the floor, a daunting prospect for clubs operating on razor-thin margins.

The other unhappy group is all of the players in the AHL, who would effectively see their salaries capped at $105,000 under Bettman’s offer. This is alarming because a veteran can make as much as $300,000 on an AHL contract, which is currently not included in the NHL team’s cap payroll.

The unhappy owners may or may not prove to be a breaking point because of an NHL bylaw Bettman smartly instituted before the 2004-05 lockout. While it takes only eight supporting votes from the 30 NHL owners to allow Bettman to reject an offer from the NHLPA, it takes 23 owners to overrule any offer Bettman makes to the players.

Formal bargaining is expected to resume “early this week” in the words of NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, who met into the early hours of Sunday morning with NHL Players’ Association special counsel Steve Fehr at an undisclosed location. The major issues of a 50-50 revenue split and how existing player contracts could be paid in full under it were discussed and both sides felt the talks were promising enough for bargaining to resume.

“We had a series of meetings yesterday and exchanged views on the most important issues separating us,” Daly said in a statement. “We plan to meet again sometime early this week.”
Fehr said in a separate statement: “I agree with what Bill said. Hopefully we can continue the dialogue, expand the group, and make steady progress.”

The ugly public-relations fallout after the NHL cancelled the Winter Classic on Friday appears to have spurred the latest talks. As the criticism built on Friday, the NHL made it known it told the players’ union it was willing to discuss ways the owners would pay more of the costs of the “make-whole” provision in its last offer. This became the biggest issue after the players agreed to reach a 50-50 revenue split at some point but wanted all existing contracts, which were signed when players received 57 per cent of the revenue, eventually to be paid in full. The owners had offered to do this by reducing the players’ share in the later years of an agreement, which was rejected by the union.

However, despite the optimism spurred by Saturday’s meeting, there are a lot of minefields in other issues, headed by the two that have a lot of owners and the minor-league players in a flap.
Sources say this owners group includes many who were previously thought to be eager to get a deal but were angered when they saw Bettman’s offer to exclude bonus payments from the cap. The clubs in this group include the usual small-revenue teams such as the Florida Panthers, Nashville Predators and New York Islanders but others, such as the Dallas Stars, St. Louis Blues, Washington Capitals, Anaheim Ducks and Colorado Avalanche, are unhappy as well. While clubs such as the Stars and Blues have reaped big revenue in the past and have new owners, their gate receipts took big hits in recent years.

Under the old agreement, a club such as the Islanders routinely made sure there were several entry-level players on its roster whose cap hit was much larger than their actual salary thanks to several bonuses. For example, in the 2011-12 season, rookie Nino Niederreiter’s entry-level contract paid him $900,000 in actual salary but nearly $2-million in bonuses brought his cap hit to just under $2.8-million. The 20-year-old was on the NHL roster for 55 games and scored exactly one goal, which meant almost all of that bonus money was never paid, a huge saving for the cash-strapped Islanders.
But under Bettman’s proposal, that would no longer be allowed. Instead of declaring $2-million they wouldn’t spend, the Islanders and other teams would have to cough up that cash in player salaries.

The owners want Bettman to find a way to make the salary floor lower in a new deal. While this will happen to some degree once the league goes to a 50-50 split, the cap is skewed by the fact the league has some clubs raising the overall revenue, on which the cap is based, with huge profits while a larger number of clubs make much less or lose money.
In the case of the minor-league players, the NHL could find itself in court. Following the 2004-05 lockout, the Professional Hockey Players’ Association, which represents minor-league players, sued the NHL because the labour agreement decreed any team that had a player with a salary of $75,000 or more claimed by another team on NHL re-entry waivers would have to pay half of the salary, which would count against their own payroll. This effectively capped salaries for AHL veterans at $75,000 and the PHPA managed to have the limit scrubbed.

Now that Bettman proposed to include all salaries above $105,000 in a team’s cap count, the PHPA could move again. At present, NHL teams often like to pay some veterans as much as $300,000 to serve on their AHL teams as mentors for the young players but this means teams would not be willing to pay more than $105,000. It would also mean the AHL would quickly lose those players, who are often fan favourites, to Russia’s Continental Hockey League or the European leagues.


I don't see this as any major trouble with the recent progress. These deals take a lot of time to iron out the details. As great as it was to see a marathon discussion happen yesterday, the reality is something like that was long overdue. If they would have started seriously negotiating back in the summer there wouldn't be any need to work through the night. But it looks like cancelling the WC was the wake up call both sides needed.
  • 0

#2314 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 08:35 PM

I realise this is a little cluttered, but its worth a view. Player salary graph from 1999-2012 for all teams, as in real dollars (not cap) paid from the numbers I put together earlier today. It is based on post trade deadline, so it doesn't include injury or trades etc. The trend is clear, but it doesn't include anything from the revenue side.

Edit, attachments suck. Another link
http://tinypic.com/r/o9ee4p/6

Attached Files


Edited by gizmo2337, 04 November 2012 - 08:55 PM.

  • 0

#2315 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,243 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:43 PM

I realise this is a little cluttered, but its worth a view. Player salary graph from 1999-2012 for all teams, as in real dollars (not cap) paid from the numbers I put together earlier today. It is based on post trade deadline, so it doesn't include injury or trades etc. The trend is clear, but it doesn't include anything from the revenue side.

Edit, attachments suck. Another link
http://tinypic.com/r/o9ee4p/6


Nice to see Vancouver climb from being one of the middle of the pack salary teams, to being consistently one of the top paying salary teams.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2316 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:51 PM

Nice to see Vancouver climb from being one of the middle of the pack salary teams, to being consistently one of the top paying salary teams.


I had to check, but statistically, we paid out more the last 4 years. (and I mean real dollars, not cap). When did Aquilini take over again?
  • 0

#2317 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,243 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:25 AM

I had to check, but statistically, we paid out more the last 4 years. (and I mean real dollars, not cap). When did Aquilini take over again?


Yep, not a coincidence that it's been tops ever since the Aquilini's took over. It's a good testament to the stable committed ownership we have here now.
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#2318 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:52 AM

Under the old agreement, a club such as the Islanders routinely made sure there were several entry-level players on its roster whose cap hit was much larger than their actual salary thanks to several bonuses. For example, in the 2011-12 season, rookie Nino Niederreiter’s entry-level contract paid him $900,000 in actual salary but nearly $2-million in bonuses brought his cap hit to just under $2.8-million. The 20-year-old was on the NHL roster for 55 games and scored exactly one goal, which meant almost all of that bonus money was never paid, a huge saving for the cash-strapped Islanders.
But under Bettman’s proposal, that would no longer be allowed. Instead of declaring $2-million they wouldn’t spend, the Islanders and other teams would have to cough up that cash in player salaries.


Ah yes, more "Wang rules". I never realised how well Wang manages to not only meet the cap floor, but pay as little real cash to get there. I encourage you to go look at his rosters for the past CBA. He's used every rule in the book. Go look at Tavares salary and bonuses schedule. Its a "back loaded" contract with bonuses in years up to the CBA renewal date!
  • 0

#2319 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 05 November 2012 - 08:55 AM

You missed the point of his post, he was refering to a new North American league.

Lets say the NHL did hired replacement players and cut ties with those locked out, the then former NHLer's formed a new (NA) league, and got a TV contract (I know this is completely hypothetically but stay with me). Would you honestly watch the old league? I might keep tabs on the Canucks, but doubtful.

And you say "they can draft new players" The NHL isn't the only league that has a draft, the KHL drafts NHL prospects all the time, they just choose not to go there, so the new league could have a draft aswell, then it would be prospect descision on where they would want to go. Some would prob go to the NHL but I could see other's going to the other league aswell.

The players are the one's that are marketed, and the players are what sells tickets and makes money, if all the NHL's stars jumped ship to a new NA league that league would gain a ton attention.

The trouble with your hypo is that the NHL wouldn't walk away from former NHLers they would simply not recognize the NHLPA. If the NHL were to take replacement players a high % would likely be existing NHLers. I don't see this happening unless a whole season is lost. Since they are talking now it appears there might still be hockey this season.

I might be off base but the NHL and their venues, history etc attracts fans. I am not suggesting existing stars aren't important but that it ends up being a financial judgement. NHL careers are short enough as is. The Habs are a 100 years old.
  • 0

#2320 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:06 AM

Very true. Those long contracts were actually a rather clever way for teams to get what they wanted out of the last CBA, either to get to overpay if you could afford to do so or to underpay if you needed to. Reducing the length and allowed growth percentage will definitely hurt both the top teams and the bottom teams by removing that option. It seems it really only helps the middle spending teams. Lowering the cap floor significantly, as proposed, will obviously help the lower end teams but will not help the higher end teams with any problems the NHL's proposed CBA would create for them getting under cap without having to trade away players.

I think that's why some people have suggested a luxury tax where teams pay to get a higher cap with the proceeds going to the lower teams. It's certainly a viable option, although a different option may be just to create a bigger spread between the floor and ceiling from the get go. That of course won't have a direct benefit on team revenue sharing, but since the top revenue teams contribute 50% of the team revenue share money already I don't think they'll want to be taxed for more. (That being said, if the "purchase cap" system were created as an alternate method of contributing to revenue sharing it might work, but only with a backup system in place to guarantee a set amount of team revenue sharing in the event that teams don't volunteer to "donate.") Personally, I like the wider cap spread idea because it would allow teams to better decide for themselves what they can/should spend and force them to take responsibility for their own bottom line. Of course, the major problem with that idea is ensuring owners spend around the players' share in each year without going too much over or under and my only thought for a way to address that (a 3-tiered cap system) sort of ballooned on me and became way too complicated. *lol*

EDIT: Actually, I just thought of another possible solution: What if we allowed teams to make $10M of their cap space transferable? Then, the higher end teams could trade to get more cap space and the lower end teams could trade away cap space they can't afford. That would allow teams losing money to lower their salary floor while allowing teams that want to spend more to raise their cap ceiling, all the while ensuring players' share remains consistent.

I like the luxury tax idea going to stabilization and your idea of being able to trade CAP space. It might cause a competitve disparity however. Fine for those teams trying to rebuild with youth but uncompetitve at the upper end. For example. A Buffalo team who has rebuilt with youth over time facing a NYR team which has spent 125% of CAP to acquire an all-star squad. Buffalo might not be able to match NYR spending levels or even worse feel they have to overspend when they cannot afford to.

Even so it might be worth a try. Also agree that shorter contracts are necessary to avoid CAP avoidance. NHLPA probably won't go for it as it has meant larger contracts over time. Tagging the signing club with long term CAP liability might temper that however.
  • 0

#2321 Boudrias

Boudrias

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,628 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 04

Posted 05 November 2012 - 09:14 AM

Yep, not a coincidence that it's been tops ever since the Aquilini's took over. It's a good testament to the stable committed ownership we have here now.

How short the memories of some or those who discount how important ownership is to a successfull franchise. As much as Burkie gets the rubarb during his tenure here I would like to have known how short a leash he had from McCaw.

Aquilini's hired Gillis and pretty much gave him a free rein. They have spent millions on the basic infrastructure of the org. Facilities and staff. Even the R&D of maximizing player performance is leading edge from what I have read.
  • 0

#2322 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:12 AM

Yep, not a coincidence that it's been tops ever since the Aquilini's took over. It's a good testament to the stable committed ownership we have here now.


Yes, he's done a good job. From what I can tell, he has given the tools to management such that they can give every advantage to players they can think of (sleep management for travel, diet, training, locker room among other things). They may not be the highest paying team for players (some ex-players had sour grape comments). In those cases where we let players go, we are just staying within internal cap structure and team direction.

This is just smart business, and we should be thankful for such "responsible" team management.
  • 0

#2323 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,501 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:18 AM

Canucks' overwhelming financial gains are due to many things, but probably #1 is the value of the Canadian dollar.
  • 0
Posted Image

#2324 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,348 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 11:19 AM

I like the luxury tax idea going to stabilization and your idea of being able to trade CAP space. It might cause a competitve disparity however. Fine for those teams trying to rebuild with youth but uncompetitve at the upper end. For example. A Buffalo team who has rebuilt with youth over time facing a NYR team which has spent 125% of CAP to acquire an all-star squad. Buffalo might not be able to match NYR spending levels or even worse feel they have to overspend when they cannot afford to.

Even so it might be worth a try. Also agree that shorter contracts are necessary to avoid CAP avoidance. NHLPA probably won't go for it as it has meant larger contracts over time. Tagging the signing club with long term CAP liability might temper that however.


I understand the desire for competitive parity but I just don't know if it's even possible, cap or not. As you rightly alluded to, even with the cap there was a disparity in what teams were spending thanks to cap avoidance tactics like long, front loaded contracts and claiming bonuses that were never paid out.

That being said, I do understand the need to keep teams at least within striking distance of one another, that's why I proposed making $10M of a team's cap space able to be traded. Unlike a luxury tax, which would put money in a pot the NHL gets to decide how to split up and with whom (assuming their new "we decide who gets what" committee suggestion was kept), allowing teams to trade $10M of their cap space would put the control in the hands of the owners, allowing them to use it as a bargaining chip to save money if they need to from a business perspective as well as get something they need to help the team competitively. It would basically turn what a lot of the lower end teams view as a burden into an asset.

In the interest of parity, however, there would definitely need to be rules in place to prevent one team from picking up everyone's extra cap space, so teams could be limited to getting extra cap from one team only and would be required to spend at least $9M of their acquired cap space (or be fined $10M) to ensure players' share is paid out. Plus, if the cap space trade is valid for a single season only, teams would need to renegotiate again the following year, punishing teams that rely on it by having to scramble and give up something to get more cap space each year while giving teams that share cap space more power in negotiating.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2325 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:10 PM

I understand the desire for competitive parity but I just don't know if it's even possible, cap or not. As you rightly alluded to, even with the cap there was a disparity in what teams were spending thanks to cap avoidance tactics like long, front loaded contracts and claiming bonuses that were never paid out.


Wang is an absolute Pro at cap floor avoidance techniques. His actual dollar amount spending is like half the league average. Bonuses that never get paid out., picking up players with less real dollar vs cap hit etc. He'd love to have Luongo on his roster for those last three years of his contract under the old CBA.

One of the problems with allowing for cap trading, is it inflates (artificial) spending pool. Normally, that space would go unused. With a larger cap and more room total, this could effectively dilute the player share because of the greedy owners at the top spending more. It's still a 50/50 projected share, so wouldn't this actually hurt the smaller player at the expense of the higher paid players?
  • 0

#2326 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,348 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

One of the problems with allowing for cap trading, is it inflates (artificial) spending pool. Normally, that space would go unused. With a larger cap and more room total, this could effectively dilute the player share because of the greedy owners at the top spending more. It's still a 50/50 projected share, so wouldn't this actually hurt the smaller player at the expense of the higher paid players?


Interesting question. I see what you're saying about the upper half of the cap normally going unused by the lower teams and therefore it would increase the amount paid out to players if some teams were able to overspend but other teams never altered their spending, meaning all players would lose some salary to escrow as a result. Excellent point.

The idea really is to help lower spending teams get a lower floor, not just trade away their unused ceiling space, so perhaps to stabilize the players' share paid out teams that trade away $10M are given a lower floor but lose $20M off the ceiling as well and the teams getting the cap are required to spend most of their acquired space.

So, for example, last season the cap range was $48M - $64M. In the event of a cap space trade, the team getting the additional $10M cap would have a new cap range of $72M-$74M because they are required to spend at least $8M of their acquired cap (above their own cap space). The team trading away the $10M cap would have a new cap range of $38M-$44M (that's $10M off the floor but $20M off the ceiling.)

Forcing teams to give up some flexibility in the interest of attaining or shedding cap space should protect players' share and hopefully discourage abuse of the cap share system.

Edited by poetica, 05 November 2012 - 12:40 PM.

  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2327 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 12:49 PM

The NHL wants to close the loopholes. If you look at the player spending chart, it was very erratic up to the last lockout, and then parity kicked in. Years 3-5 into the last CBA, loopholes began to be abused and we are back where we were (erratic spending and disparity between teams). I view cap trading as a new loophole that is almost certain to be exploited (NYR).

How about they introduce a new level to the cap: (hard floor, soft floor, middle target, ceiling). Teams like NYI could be granted more revenue sharing for spending between soft floor and middle, but reduce that sharing if they really don't want to spend (a penalty of reduced revenue share pool for not keeping in parity with league). Teams spending between middle and ceiling pay more into the revenue share pool.
  • 0

#2328 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,348 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:32 PM

The NHL wants to close the loopholes. If you look at the player spending chart, it was very erratic up to the last lockout, and then parity kicked in. Years 3-5 into the last CBA, loopholes began to be abused and we are back where we were (erratic spending and disparity between teams). I view cap trading as a new loophole that is almost certain to be exploited (NYR).


True. And from the parity perspective that makes sense. But from the revenue perspective it doesn't. Teams that found ways to overspend benefited from having more big name stars generating revenue and teams that found ways to underspend benefited from losing less each season, making them more likely to stay afloat and not end up crashing on the NHL's couch indefinitely.

Finding the balance between parity and revenue generation is the big challenge for any league. They have to strike a balance between helping teams that need it and not hurting teams that pay for it all. And that was the goal of my purposed cap trading, to offset the disparity by promoting revenue generation and providing additional direct benefits to the individual teams trading away cap via the trade itself.

How about they introduce a new level to the cap: (hard floor, soft floor, middle target, ceiling). Teams like NYI could be granted more revenue sharing for spending between soft floor and middle, but reduce that sharing if they really don't want to spend (a penalty of reduced revenue share pool for not keeping in parity with league). Teams spending between middle and ceiling pay more into the revenue share pool.


I don't understand how that addresses parity when it allows an even larger range and doesn't seem to protect players' share. How does punishing teams for not overspending what they can actually afford to help anyone? I thought the idea was to encourage teams to be more fiscally responsible, not less. Am I just misunderstanding what you're proposing?
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2329 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 01:48 PM

The player that writes as Cheapthroat just came back from Europe. He jokes he's going to single handedly stop the lockout. Considering he's going to the extra trouble of getting to NY, while the airports were closed, through MTL and driving from there. I think there may be some information the PA is optimistic about. Just a theory.

http://thebarnstorme...y/cheap-throat/
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#2330 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:00 PM

CHP, I can't tell if that's tongue in cheek or if you're taking the Cheap Throat stuff seriously.
  • 0

#2331 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:07 PM

I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor.

Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether. But, the only way NYI could hope to ice a cup contending team would be to have longer contracts that are "back loaded". All of their prospects would have to line-up in the same time frame, and they would have to trade them before the back end of the deal kicked in. I would like to see them actually make the playoffs. I suppose the only real option is the increased revenue sharing that's already on the table.

They need to change the formula for the cap ceiling. Probably remove the PA elected 5% growth option for starters. The revenue sharing needs to be tied to growth and not a fixed number, or we will be back here again in seven years. I'll be looking at the revenue sharing clause very carefully once the details become available. I fear it will have a fixed number.
  • 0

#2332 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:13 PM

Cheapthroat is Vanek, Austrian league is on a break, he announced he's coming back to New York - Buffalo. I don't think Vanek has that much sway to be honest.
  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#2333 The Bookie

The Bookie

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,660 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:15 PM

If it’s November, it means serious negotiations are finally under way

It has just seemed too scripted. Since like, May.
There was always going to be a NHL lockout and there was never going to be hockey in October and November. Neither side in the NHL labour battled “wanted” it that way, but only if the solution was that they got a slam-dunk victory dropped in their laps in August or September. Both said repeatedly they wanted the season to start on time, but neither the owners nor the players did anything much to make that happen.
The owners offered up a shocking initial proposal that would have pushed the NHL Players’ Association back 20 years. The union just basically declined to participate in the process by a peculiar form of passive aggressiveness.
Why did both sides do it the way they did it? Well, the NHL had two major factors motivating its approach. First, they had their backs up with Don Fehr. After dealing with years of union dysfunction and chaos — there were times when they literally had no idea who to contact in the NHLPA offices — they were frustrated to have to deal with Fehr, who they saw from the beginning as a person who wouldn’t be able to close.
Second, labour resolutions in other sports all approximated more of a 50-50 split in revenues that the NHL had. No self-respecting NHL owner was going to leave things anywhere near the 57-43 split that was in place in the final year of the old deal.
And the players? Fehr made this about 2004. This was never about getting a deal in time not to miss any paycheques. It was about recovering the collective integrity and backbone that was “lost” in the last lockout. That simply couldn’t be done by getting a deal done in the summer. The union came to believe that negotiating and compromising and getting to work in September would be interpreted only as a sign of weakness. Fehr, who was at the mutineers’ beck and call when Paul Kelly was executed in the middle of the night, had convinced the union that compromise and practicality would send a message that the union was soft.
The combination of these two positions, plus years of mistrust and mutual enmity and propaganda, meant that hockey fans were always going to be shortchanged.
And as if a bell went off, the moment the calender switched over to November, the serious talks began.
Both sides have already achieved a twisted version of what they wanted, which should clear the way for a deal now. The NHL will, in some form or another, get their 50-50 split, and they’ll be able to crow that they handled Fehr in a way that baseball never could.
The union, meanwhile, will have its manhood back, and they’ll have used a dislike for Gary Bettman as a rallying cry, and they’ll know, as they always know, that agents will make sure that loopholes and cracks are found in the new deal that will ensure they end up ahead down the road, just as they experienced enormous salary increases after “losing” the last lockout.
Hey, it could still get screwed up, and in its bloodless calculations, the NHL quite likely never anticipated losing the lucrative Winter Classic. Talks will resume tomorrow after some fruitful weekend discussions produced some intriguing new approaches, and while the nature of labour negotiations probably mandates there will be at least one more occasion when one side or the other stalks away from the talks and panic of another cancelled season erupts, playing by early December looks about right now.
The incredibly frustrating thing for hockey fans and anybody who cares about this industry is that it looked this way last spring, and nobody did much to make sure it didn’t happen. The script went as logic dictated it would.


  • 0

#2334 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:23 PM

CHP, I can't tell if that's tongue in cheek or if you're taking the Cheap Throat stuff seriously.


Totes serious. Like a bad case of Marchand. : D

Either way, I think whomever is writing it is getting the NHL & NHLPA updates. And if their goal is to convince people he's real then getting back just in time for the lockout to end..... would be a clicher.

Don't think it's Vanek. I think it's Winchester. In which case he may just be back for the First Assist Charity tour.
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#2335 gizmo2337

gizmo2337

    Comets Star

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

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:33 PM

Cheapthroat is Vanek, Austrian league is on a break, he announced he's coming back to New York - Buffalo. I don't think Vanek has that much sway to be honest.


Interesting if true. How did you figure that out, or is educated guess? I haven't been following that blog, but I just read a few days on there. Day 44 is a doozey!
  • 0

#2336 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,348 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 02:53 PM

I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor.


I get that. But that just allows some teams to spend less, meaning there's no guarantee other teams will spend more to make up for the loss to players' share. Unless I'm missing something, it would create even greater disparity in teams' spending without any of the benefits I think my proposed cap trade could provide.

Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether.


I believe the main reason for reducing players' share is to lower the floor while still keeping the cap in the same range in the interest of parity, so I don't think they'll want to just drop the floor in comparison to the ceiling.

They need to change the formula for the cap ceiling. Probably remove the PA elected 5% growth option for starters. The revenue sharing needs to be tied to growth and not a fixed number, or we will be back here again in seven years. I'll be looking at the revenue sharing clause very carefully once the details become available. I fear it will have a fixed number.


If you remove the union's option to increase the cap by 5% to account for yearly revenue increases, how will you ensure players' share is fully paid out? (Remember, over the last CBA the average yearly revenue growth rate was over 6%.)

Of course we don't have all of the details of what's being purposed, much less what will ultimately be put into place, but to their credit the NHL did propose tying revenue sharing with HRR. (Reference: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572) That being said, I'm not sure if that would stick at 6%, which is what I think they proposed for the first year of the CBA, or if they created some weird formula to determine how much gets shared. They did say that they were "proposing to commit for the next two years revenue sharing payments to recipient Clubs that are equivalent to or greater than what those Clubs will receive on account of the 2011/12 season." Why that commitment level would only remain in place for 2 years is beyond me.
  • 0
Go, Canucks, Go!
Every single one of them.

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(

#2337 Zissou

Zissou

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 08

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:02 PM

Interesting if true. How did you figure that out, or is educated guess? I haven't been following that blog, but I just read a few days on there. Day 44 is a doozey!


Read a few days and was a little iffy about whether its real or not. After reading Day 44 I can't imagine that's an actual NHL player. No NHL player (regardless of being anonymous or not) would name another player publicly and by name in that situation.
  • 0

#2338 Fozzy

Fozzy

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 05

Posted 05 November 2012 - 03:15 PM

Lp
  • 0

#2339 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,031 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:00 PM

I was meaning the soft cap, mid and ceiling would be where they are at now, and adding a new lower cap hard floor.

Maybe we should just drop the floor altogether. ...

There's no way they drop the floor altogether, but they'd have to keep the same range of the cap as it has been or they're proposing. I can see trying to bring it down some or at least fixing it so it doesn't rise until revenues catch up to help teams not making money, but the range either needs to be kept the same or have the ceiling brought closer to the floor.

As far as your soft floor idea, and thinking of the proposed NHL idea to not have unpaid bonuses count for whether or not a team gets to the floor, I had an idea towards that. Have bonuses count like normal (in the cap regardless of floor, ceiling, whatever until they are no longer attainable) but give a higher percentage of revenue sharing for teams that qualify and have reached the floor before bonuses are factored in. That could also be applied to if they hit a number higher than the floor rather than do the bare minimum, a secondary soft cap above what is being proposed now, or have that as the low water mark for even qualifying for revenue sharing.

...
If you remove the union's option to increase the cap by 5% to account for yearly revenue increases, how will you ensure players' share is fully paid out? (Remember, over the last CBA the average yearly revenue growth rate was over 6%.)

Of course we don't have all of the details of what's being purposed, much less what will ultimately be put into place, but to their credit the NHL did propose tying revenue sharing with HRR. (Reference: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572) That being said, I'm not sure if that would stick at 6%, which is what I think they proposed for the first year of the CBA, or if they created some weird formula to determine how much gets shared. They did say that they were "proposing to commit for the next two years revenue sharing payments to recipient Clubs that are equivalent to or greater than what those Clubs will receive on account of the 2011/12 season." Why that commitment level would only remain in place for 2 years is beyond me.

I think there does have to be an element of tying it in towards actual increase in revenues rather than a fixed percentage, but your point about what happens to how players' contracts are protected if revenue doesn't increase is a good one. The only solution I see for that is a two-tiered approach, with a minimum of something like 3% being a fixed amount the cap must move each year, and for any revenue gains above that then the cap will move an equal amount (or a percentage of or something similar).

Even if 50/50 is a big number that people seem to think both sides agree on now, there are still a lot of numbers tied to that which still need to be figured out. Formulas and definitions tied to each of those numbers are important too, so I don't see it all being ironed out until later in November if they are close.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image

#2340 poetica

poetica

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,348 posts
  • Joined: 09-June 11

Posted 05 November 2012 - 04:38 PM

I think there does have to be an element of tying it in towards actual increase in revenues rather than a fixed percentage, but your point about what happens to how players' contracts are protected if revenue doesn't increase is a good one. The only solution I see for that is a two-tiered approach, with a minimum of something like 3% being a fixed amount the cap must move each year, and for any revenue gains above that then the cap will move an equal amount (or a percentage of or something similar).


Teams will have to spend to the players' share regardless of cap. I located another copy of the CBA and finally found the procedure for the event of a shortage. In that case, everything in escrow is released to players plus additional payments are made by each club to players pro rated to actual salary. So, even if you did under account for growth teams would still have to cough up the money later, so it wouldn't really help in the long run. The only exception would be that it would allow owners to put off paying a portion of salaries until after the season has ended and allow them to make interest off that money.

So, I think the 5%, which was still below the yearly average over the life of the last CBA, was intended to keep the amount players actually got paid in a timely fashion more in line with what was owed.

Honestly, if nothing else, all of this should remind us that this is seriously complicated crap! Coming up with a new CBA isn't as easy as we sometimes like to make it sound. There are way more factors than most fans realize and far more than fans want to have to care about.

Edited by poetica, 05 November 2012 - 04:46 PM.

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

Thanks for the memories, Luo! :'(




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.