Smashian Kassian Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 1) Players will never accept the no signing bonus's thing. and they won't like the loss of revenue percentage. 2) 5 year Entry level deals are way too long, same with the 10 year RFA status 3) I like the idea of having 5 years max on contracts. It protects GM's against there own stupidity and it also makes players value more about there actual value as a player and less about there contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester@wraiths.ca Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 5 year entry deals, unless the maximum dollar values were increased, would lead to more highly touted players playing overseas. Currently, a young gun knows he'll get paid after 3 years, but moving to 5 years would remove 2 very well paid years from the player. For good young players, they could lose 10 million dollars by that change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTo ThE WiLD Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm all for term limits on contracts and an end to front loaded contracts. 10 years before UFA is also a good thing IMO. Currently it's 7 years. Teams draft and develop players only to lose them to free agency. The league pbbly won't get 10 years but I can see them getting at least 8 and possibly 9 years. The NBA and NFL recently signed agreements with their respective unions calling for 50/50 split in revenues. NHL will get a similar split from players getting 57/43 right now. I'm all for these changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckelhead70 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 F*ck.... Am I still the only one pointing the finger at Bettman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sorry but your post is factually incorrect. The players did not get "screwed' over the last deal. In actuality the players won huge in the last agreement. The cap floor is higher now than the cap max was in the 1st year of the CBA. The players got 57% of revenues on the last CBA. Players got the right to turn UFA 2 years earlier than previously. Salaries have ballooned over the past agreement. I don't know how any one can say the players got screwed. Owners invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a hockey franchise. They should be able to turn a profit, instead we have one third of the teams losing money. This model is unsustainable. Like I said in earlier post, NFL and the NBA just signed agreements with their unions splitting the revenues 50-50 for NBA and 53% for owners and 47% for players in the NFL. I think something along these lines will also happen for the NHL. The current 57 to 43 split in the player's favour is not going to work going forward. And your beef with revenue sharing between Vancouver and Minnesota does not have anything to do with when a player has the right to turn UFA or how long ELC's should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onside Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Salaries have ballooned over the past agreement. I don't know how any one can say the players got screwed. Salaries go up because the cap goes up, the cap goes up because hockey related revenue goes up if the owners were losing so much money then hockey related revenue wouldn't be going up. What Bettman did in 2004 was force the players to accept a fixed percentage of the hockey related revenue. And now he is trying to cut that percentage by up to 11%, why should the players be held responsible for Gm's who sign players to ridiculous contracts or choose to prop up failing franchises. That is Bettmans responsibility but the reality all he cares about is making more money for the 30 Owners in the league. None of these owners are struggling, remember Leopold he bought the Preds for $ 80 million, cried about how he was losing so much money, sold for $ 193 million then turned around and bought the Wild and has just signed Suter and Parise to stupid contracts. Don't think about this as millions of dollars, try to think like this is your wage at work. Your company makes x amount of dollars and you get a % of that profit (57%) as salary. Because the company is making money your salary has increased steadily over the past few years but now your boss is saying that you are only going to receive 46% of the profits and that he will take 56%. What is to stop him from saying 5 years down the road that you will only get 30%? Yes hockey players make ludicrous amounts of money but owners make exponentially more more money. There is no way that owners can lose here unless the NHLPA decides to disband and negotiate contracts on a individual basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni_14 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Not trying to specifically target you though you may think otherwise but that view point is pathetic. Gary Bettman and his minions have basically declared an act of war against the NHLPA by insulting them with that offer. Remember, the players got screwed over in the last deal yet the owners were dumb enough to let them win. Bettman is not going to get what he wants. Fehr is not Goodenow, he has his boys in unison and this offer is absolutely pathetic. We all know there will be a lockout and I hope the PA burns the NHL. I am sick and tired of seeing my money which I use to go to Canucks games/ buy Canucks gear go to small market teams like Minnesota and Carolina who can then over spend for stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I am a firm believer that the owners own the companies. We as employees choose to work there. We can always go out and start our own business if we want to call the shots. If the owners get too pigheaded, this is exactly what the players can do. Go out and form another WHA. Its difficult and would need financial backing, but its enough to maintain leverage over any deals. I like a system of checks and balances. The great thing about a free society is if we don't like our boss we can get up and leave if we want to . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drybone Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 ummmmm... yeah... Minnesota is a small market for hockey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal1 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 1) Players will never accept the no signing bonus's thing. and they won't like the loss of revenue percentage. 2) 5 year Entry level deals are way too long, same with the 10 year RFA status 3) I like the idea of having 5 years max on contracts. It protects GM's against there own stupidity and it also makes players value more about there actual value as a player and less about there contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 NBA is 50/50 NFL is not , it is 53/47 I don't know why you guys are complaining the offer is good, and obviously it won't reach but that's what negotiating is about, you start high to end up with a decent result . -10 years of RFA are prolly gonna go down to 8 years or 9 years -54/46 would be very good , as players make waaaaayyy enough money and let's not forget the league would never work with owners, if owners keep losing money they are not going to want to stay .... It is not acceptable that players keep making millions and millions and that owners keep losing money every year by running a team. So yeah 54/46 would be the best but it won't happen, it will prolly turn into 50/50 like NBA or maybe 51/49 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm sorry but your post is factually incorrect. The players did not get "screwed' over the last deal. In actuality the players won huge in the last agreement. The cap floor is higher now than the cap max was in the 1st year of the CBA. The players got 57% of revenues on the last CBA. Players got the right to turn UFA 2 years earlier than previously. Salaries have ballooned over the past agreement. I don't know how any one can say the players got screwed. Owners invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a hockey franchise. They should be able to turn a profit, instead we have one third of the teams losing money. This model is unsustainable. Like I said in earlier post, NFL and the NBA just signed agreements with their unions splitting the revenues 50-50 for NBA and 53% for owners and 47% for players in the NFL. I think something along these lines will also happen for the NHL. The current 57 to 43 split in the player's favour is not going to work going forward. And your beef with revenue sharing between Vancouver and Minnesota does not have anything to do with when a player has the right to turn UFA or how long ELC's should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 NBA is 50/50 NFL is not , it is 53/47 I don't know why you guys are complaining the offer is good, and obviously it won't reach but that's what negotiating is about, you start high to end up with a decent result . -10 years of RFA are prolly gonna go down to 8 years or 9 years -54/46 would be very good , as players make waaaaayyy enough money and let's not forget the league would never work with owners, if owners keep losing money they are not going to want to stay .... It is not acceptable that players keep making millions and millions and that owners keep losing money every year by running a team. So yeah 54/46 would be the best but it won't happen, it will prolly turn into 50/50 like NBA or maybe 51/49 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Let's just agree that there is a lot in that proposal that the players will never accept and that means only one thing: no NHL hockey for a long time. In 2004 the players said they would NEVER accept any type of salary cap. They were adamant about that. After a year of lock out, well, there was a salary cap. Same will happen here. You know most players are saying NEVER to most of those points. With Fehr, the players' position will not be all over the media like last time but we all know what they think. Bettman loves a war and has the tools to win. It's going to be long and nasty. And count on a new salary cap of around $60-62 million max when it restarts, and no long contracts that lower cap hits, plus other changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBossy Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 First off I Bettman needs to realize he isnt dealing with his old buddy Boob Goodenow. Fehr is one tough cookie - it's why the players signed him. It is negotiations and employers always start off with high demands - as will the players and after lots of horse trading they come to an agreement. Problem here is I think the NHl is taking their lead from the NBA etc and we could see a work stoppage which isnt great for the game but come one - we're Canadians - there could be a 2 yr work stoppage and we will still be right back there filling the stands and watching the games on tv - don't kid yourself My issue is the NHLs demands seem to be geared towards protecting the small market teams with language such as longer ELCs and longer terms until you can be a UFA. To me if a market can't survive under the current CBA move it - don't use the CBA as a way to keep teams where they don't belong - Phoenix for one. I think the players will have to move on the sharing of revenue but in all fairness doesnt Bettman come on CBC etc during the playoffs to say how great the league is doing and how much more revenue it has gained from the year before etc. For example: http://www.hockeyprimetime.com/news/features/bettman-addresses-state-of-the-nhl-prior-to-game-1 The NHL’s overall environment is healthier than at any point in its history. That was NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman’s overriding point during his press conference at the Prudential Center two hours prior to the start of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final. During his 22-minute press conference Bettman reported that the league earned $3.3 billion and had “96 percent capacity,” during the regular season. He noted that the attendance rose to “102 percent capacity” in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see the players response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckbeliever Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 First off I Bettman needs to realize he isnt dealing with his old buddy Boob Goodenow. Fehr is one tough cookie - it's why the players signed him. It is negotiations and employers always start off with high demands - as will the players and after lots of horse trading they come to an agreement. Problem here is I think the NHl is taking their lead from the NBA etc and we could see a work stoppage which isnt great for the game but come one - we're Canadians - there could be a 2 yr work stoppage and we will still be right back there filling the stands and watching the games on tv - don't kid yourself My issue is the NHLs demands seem to be geared towards protecting the small market teams with language such as longer ELCs and longer terms until you can be a UFA. To me if a market can't survive under the current CBA move it - don't use the CBA as a way to keep teams where they don't belong - Phoenix for one. I think the players will have to move on the sharing of revenue but in all fairness doesnt Bettman come on CBC etc during the playoffs to say how great the league is doing and how much more revenue it has gained from the year before etc. For example: http://www.hockeypri...prior-to-game-1 The NHL’s overall environment is healthier than at any point in its history. That was NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman’s overriding point during his press conference at the Prudential Center two hours prior to the start of Game 1 of the Stanley Cup Final. During his 22-minute press conference Bettman reported that the league earned $3.3 billion and had “96 percent capacity,” during the regular season. He noted that the attendance rose to “102 percent capacity” in the playoffs. Will be interesting to see the players response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 It's extreme, but that's how you negotiate. You don't expect to get what you ask for in the beginning. There will be some sort of happy medium, hopefully without any arbitrator or lockouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpush Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Greg Wyshynski has a good piece outlining what happened in the last CBA and what the players are asking for in this CBA. I recommend anyone interested in this to check out the link. http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/player-really-stake-nhlpa-collective-bargaining-nhl-141923225--nhl.html a few interesting parts IMO. "Bettman claimed League-wide losses of around $300 million. On the other side, the players wanted to work in a free market system, not artificially constrained by a salary cap. We contended that salaries had only risen to a level that owners and GMs had been willing to pay — a level they felt they could afford. We felt that it wasn't only competitive balance the League was seeking but, more importantly, to improve the bottom lines of the clubs and increase the value of the franchises." "Players would receive 54 percent of HRR, and this number would be used to calculate the mid-point of the salary cap. The hard cap would be $8 million above that mid-point and the salary floor would be $8 million below it. To get to this artificially low number, the players took a 24-percent rollback on all existing contracts. In addition, the NHL and the NHLPA bargained for a revenue sharing system to help transfer money from the haves to the have-nots. That agreement was ratified by the players in the summer of 2005; that season, the League played with a cap of $39 million and a floor of $23 million. Fast forward to this past season, and the players' growing share (now 57 percent) of growing revenues (about $3.3 billion) meant that the cap had risen to approximately $64 million. Which means that the salary floor was $48 million, or $11 million (28 percent) more than the upper limit had been seven years earlier." "As we know, in 2011-2012 players received 57 percent of the revenues, which are believed to be in the neighborhood of $3.3 billion. So, over the course of that time revenues have increased by over 50 percent while player costs have only increased by about 15 percent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fincup13 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 What Bettman hasn't realized is if there is a lockout there is now a comparable league in the KHL that players can flee to and get ridiculous contracts. If the players call his bluff I could see the NHL being changed permanently for the worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuel Påhlsson Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 1st step towards another lock-out. Go Bettman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.