Brambojoe Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Since the deadlock appears to be on how to pay for the "already signed" contracts based on a 57% split perhaps the 50/50 approach can work there as well. 50% of the difference is covered based on players proposal 3 (basically 6.5% of player salary doesn't count against player share) 50% of the difference is covered based on the owners proposal (wasn't really clear how this was handled except that it comes from player share) A thought... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I don't get 450 G's/year to work hard 8 hours/day, 5 days/week at some blue collar job......The players wouldn't even be content with 200 G's a year(well over what many m,any people make), TO PLAY HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off.... sickening humans man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sameer666 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I don't get 450 G's/year to work hard 8 hours/day, 5 days/week at some blue collar job......The players wouldn't even be content with 200 G's a year(well over what many m,any people make), TO PLAY HOCKEY!!!!!!!!!!!! Eff off.... sickening humans man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted October 22, 2012 Author Share Posted October 22, 2012 @benkuzma: Canucks defenceman Garrison (groin) said he'd be ready if NHL season starts Nov.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanj Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 @benkuzma: Canucks defenceman Garrison (groin) said he'd be ready if NHL season starts Nov.2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go JETS Go Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A Little Perspective on who is being greedy and who is being bent over the barrel. Whether you are on the owners side or the players it is of little significance. The reality or my challenge for you to think about is not who is right or wrong but who is graciously volunteering to be the victim which is us the fans, the people who spend their hard earned dollar, and the ones who look to this game as entertainment or an escape from the daily grind. Both parties are fighting over how they are going to divide up the money they are taking from our wallets with no concern or thought that the wallet one day won't be there. In fact they haven't even asked our permission to fight over our money! Think about it if you lost your wallet and after retracing your steps you come accross two individuals fighting over how much of your money they were going to take, what would you do? Well I know what I would and most of you reading this would do; I would grab a jersey pull it over their heads and lay the beat down. But in the case of the Lockout we stand by waiting for them to argue over what is not their property and blindly hope that once their unjust battle is over we can throw more money at them. We built this league! not the owners or the players! It was and always has been the fans,the parents who drove the kids to early morning practice to become NHL players, the ones who tredge through snow and traffic jams to get to games, the one's who cheered the loudest or invented the wave, the ones who have invested billions in tickets so that they could build the fancy arena's and sell useless trinkets. To hell with you owners and shame on you for only thinking of your purse! To hell with you players you should be ashamed of yourselves this is not what your parents raised you to be! And to hell with all of us that gave up the control to what is rightfully ours, or money and our loyalty! Think about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Well, to be fair, once we give them our money it becomes theirs. So, they're not fighting over our money, just money that we gave them willingly. (It's not really akin to them finding a lost wallet.) But I absolutely support your idea that fans need to use our power as the revenue source to ensure that the NHL (owners and players) are held accountable. This is an entertainment industry, so entertain us! If we keep letting them have work stoppages but never make them pay for it by withholding our money, they'll just keep doing it. The only way we can protect our interest in having hockey to watch is to punish them for work stoppages by withholding our money when they return. (See my signature!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islandboss Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It dosen't matter what the percentage is owners don't have to spend to the cap.If they had any self control they wouldn't need a lower agreement to protect them from themselves.Its all hog wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 It dosen't matter what the percentage is owners don't have to spend to the cap.If they had any self control they wouldn't need a lower agreement to protect them from themselves.Its all hog wash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Owners leave the current revenue sharing as it is. 57:43 for the players. But: -No Guaranteed Contracts -Players can be cut like the NFL If we're going to go into a long period of no talks. I'd like for it to go out with a bang, with an offer like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-52 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Im not sure if this was posted, someone was talking about it on 101.1 earlier this morning. An expert whose name I forget said he had a very strong feeling that we will see hockey by nov 2, and that they will agree possibly as soon as wednesday! Obviously this is just here-say but its still refreshing to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Im not sure if this was posted, someone was talking about it on 101.1 earlier this morning. An expert whose name I forget said he had a very strong feeling that we will see hockey by nov 2, and that they will agree possibly as soon as wednesday! Obviously this is just here-say but its still refreshing to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 David Pratt doesnt qualify as hockey expert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Here's what we should do here. - Split the HRR at 53/47 in the 1st year (for the players) - Move to 50/50 split of the HRR in the 2nd year - Create a mechanism to pay back the players for salary lost (from the rollback's) at the end of either the 2nd or 3rd year (but make sure the Owner's are actually paying the players, not the players paying players) - ETC for either 2 years or 3 years - UFA status at age 28 or 8 years of service - Develop a revenue sharing program Not sure if there are any issue's I didn't cover, but does anyone agree/disgree? Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen Nolan Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 @RealKyper: @hnicsimmer "If players voted 2 ratify/reject deal, what's the result"? Simmer I believe its close. That's why I think #dealwillstillhappen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Here's what we should do here. - Split the HRR at 53/47 in the 1st year (for the players) - Move to 50/50 split of the HRR in the 2nd year - Create a mechanism to pay back the players for salary lost (from the rollback's) at the end of either the 2nd or 3rd year (but make sure the Owner's are actually paying the players, not the players paying players) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I did this calculation and similar idea a little farther back in this thread, and assuming 5% growth, the payback doesn't happen till year 3 or 4 depending on 49/51 or 50/50 split. My proposal needed a way to balance the savings, which I would see as banked money in the first few years and then paid back in the later 3 years. The players still get their money, and savings could be immediate and consistent for the owners. edit I proposed 49% for the players as a way to get the owners on board and get closer to the total savings of the NHL offer. The players would get a longer CBA deal (maybe 10 years) and keep a longer contract term limit (7 years)in exchange for higher revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Starting at a higher percent share and then working towards 50/50 over the course of a few years, isn't that what a couple of the the NHLPA's proposals offered? To me that sounds the most reasonable and doable. (Even the NHL knows their proposal isn't doable in the first year. That's why they have the cap limit forgiveness for the first year.) I think the biggest problem is figuring out how to make owners honor the spirit, if not exact dollar amount, of contracts rather than allowing them to put that responsibility on the players. Without having a separate fund that doesn't count against cap, I just don't see how it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Smashian, I'll repost, but just this one time because I think my timing was bad. My idea as follows: ==== -players agree to declining percentage over course of CBA until 49% is reached for players -players HRR remains frozen based on 2012, until growth level allows 49% split -cap is based on player percentage/30teams for midpoint -upper cap and lower cap is 8mil above and 12mil below midpoint -teams exceeding the midpoint pay more into revenue sharing -teams below cap receive more revenue sharing with 5% growth, it looks like this with 1.58b savings to owners over course of deal. In order for the players to do this, the teams spending over the midpoint would need to contribute more (escalating tax?) to the lower revenue teams. Teams that are on tighter budget are rewarded for spending within their means (direct savings on players salary and higher revenue sharing). yr revenue player cut player% owner savings cap mid 2013 3.44b 1.870b 54.3 93m 62m 2014 3.61b 1.870b 51.7 191m 62m 2015 3.80b 1.870b 49.2 294m 62m 2016 3.99b 1.95b 49 319m 65m 2017 4.19b 2.05b 49 335m 68m 2018 4.40b 2.15b 49 352m 72m Now, what this doesn't address is how the owners get immediate relief in the first three years. Somehow that owner savings needs to be averaged out over the deal while still allowing the players to get their money. Maybe a deferred make whole payment where the players just get that money later? In order for the players to concede 49%, I think they should be rewarded with a longer deal (10 year), and even more revenue sharing between teams than has been suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poetica Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Actually, I think that's a plan they could work with, at least as a great starting point that addresses both sides' issues. (Obviously they'd have to hash out the exact details, particularly relating to team revenue sharing.) I do personally like the idea of higher spending teams paying into the revenue sharing pot and the lower spending teams getting a share from it. Then it's completely on the owners to spend within their means and they're rewarded for doing so. As you mentioned, I don't think it helps owners in the first year, but if the NHL is correct and growth will continue at 5% per year, it would produce a savings starting in the second year if players' share is hard linked to 2012 revenue numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.