RippedOnNitro

Don't have a large budget but here goes: Only if the Wings win the cup: $20 + $5 per sweep + $2 per shut out + $1 per goal from one these players (Brendan Smith, Tomas Jurco, Teemu Pulkkinen, Ryan Sproul).

True, Hamilton did not impress me much, but Rielly did so far. I thought Nugent-Hopkins and Scheifele are playing great, but haven't seen Huberdeau much. Strome also playing good in this tournament. Galchenyuk also playing a good tournament, and I also like Gibson in goal. I was hoping to see more from MacKinnon, but not much ice time for him.

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="WorkingOvertime" data-cid="2337075" data-time="1356862509"><p> Anyone else up early for the USA v Canada game? Canada up 2-0 after the first.</p></blockquote> Yep...but then again, it is 11am over here

Uhm...if they would start late january with playing games, wouldn't that mean there needs to be another block of games cancelled? As of now all games till the 14th are cancelled, so with a one week training camp it would come to an actual deadline of around the 7th of January when a deal needs to be reached. If they go past this 7th of January the next cancellation would be announced around this date right? I am not sure if they will cancel another block of games or they will cancel the whole season that is. Please correct me if I am wrong...

Will this be enough for Fehr to accept?? http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=412368 "The NHL has made a new CBA proposal to the NHL Players' Association, an NHL player told TSN on Friday. The player, who requested anonymity, said the NHL made a new offer to the NHLPA on Thursday, one which moved on term limit for player contracts, salary variance and buyouts. According to TSN Hockey Insider Darren Dreger, the NHL adjusted its maximum contract length from five to six years (seven years if a team is re-signing its own player) and boosted the variance from five to 10 per cent. TSN Hockey Insider Pierre LeBrun adds that the new offer includes the 'Make Whole' provision that stays at $300 million and allows each team one compliance buyout prior to the 2013-14 season. The buyout would not count against the cap, but it would against the players' share. NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly would not confirm what the player said when reached by TSN. More to follow."

Thank you for posting this article. It was very easy to understand and very insightfull. Seems the players are playing a very dangerous game with this 'disclaimer of interest'-voting! It either force the owners back to the table and come to a deal in the middle or... The owners don't bite and will await judge decision (which is a good chance it will favors the owners) and then they can really stick it to the players. It will then shift from the owners driving the car with the players in the passenger seat to the owners driving the car with the players tied up in the trunk.

Will the league and the PA stubbornly let the season burn because of their refusal to meet in the middle on two key issues? I'm perplexed. Because: 1. The league wants a 10-year deal. The players want eight. This is the opposite of what it should be. If I'm a player, I want a 20-year deal. Hell yeah. Because the owners will just play another stupid lockout stunt, and take take take again. Bet the players wished the last CBA was 10 years… Fehr's reason for the shorter term? Because the future players in the league will be in a CBA that they didn't get to vote on. Garbage. This is just a Fehr power trip, trying to say 'black' because the owners said 'white'. Dumb. 2. The league wants to cap contracts at five years. The players want it capped at eight years. More backwards ideals. Granted, two dozen or so players would benefit from eight-year deals, thanks to injuries, etc. The Marc Savards and the Rick DiPietros of the future will thank Fehr for being stubborn here. But the Taylor Halls and the Ryan Nugent-Hopkins will say "s***, had I signed for five years, I'd have a new contract for Year 6 and with salaries rising like they have been, I'd be making $10 million that year. Instead, I'm in Year 6 of an eight-year deal and I'm stuck making $5 million." Other issues… 3. The league wants the gap in dollars between the top-salary year of a contract and the bottom-salary year of a contract to be 5% at the most. The PA wants this to be 75%. Okay, this is the first bit of stubbornness that actually makes sense for the players. Frankly, I think if they agreed to meet in the middle for points one and two (and again, they should actually meet the owners all the way - and then take it even further…they have it bass-ackwards), they can get this point to be closer to 20% 4. The NHLPA wants a cap on escrow. Another thing that makes sense, though from what I can gather this is a 'new' thing that they tossed into the discussion less than two weeks ago. I don't see why the league can't give this to them. So that's where we're at, folks. Is the season done? The NHLPA, if they vote to enact the disclaimer of interest, the two sides will have 20 days to get a deal done or the season is essentially toast. So if you want your hard date, it's January 6. Although, I'm not sure about "business days" or "any day". And with Christmas in there then perhaps 20 days becomes closer to 30. But regardless, I'm sure that exact, accurate detail is known by both sides. So they have their "drop dead" date. It will speed things along finally.

I don't understand...Fehr said that they were really close to a deal a week ago. So why doesn't he just put the owners last proposal to a player's vote first??? Atleast then you know if it is worth going to the dissolving the union road and essentially killing the season. Of what I read a lot it seems that when the court thinks the 'disclaim of interest' is only used because of a negotiation tactic it will decide that a lockout is legal. Anyone know how long it will take a court to give a verdict?

Yep I say screw the owners and screw the players, just like they screwed the fans. And meanwhile the Red Wings have finally a chance for a top 3 pick

Ok, so let me see if I can understand...(please correct me if I am wrong): 1) The only issue is the contract length and % difference on the contract in order to prevent front-loading. Let's say player A is 34 years old and signs a new contract (I am not sure what age a 'star' player normally retires, but let's say at age 38). Owners proposal: Year 1: $8.0M Year 2: $7.6M Year 3: $7.2M Year 4: $6.8M Year 5: $6.5M Year 6: $6.2M Year 7: $5.9M Cap hit: $6.9M --> player got paid $29.6M while the cap hit was $27.6M. --> cap relieve of $2.0M Players proposal: Year 1: $8.0M Year 2: $8.0M Year 3: $8.0M Year 4: $8.0M Year 5: $2.0M Year 6: $2.0M Year 7: $2.0M Year 8: $2.0M Cap hit: $5.0M --> player got paid $32M while the cap hit was $20M --> cap relieve of $12.0M So only one of these proposals actually solves the front loaded contracts? 2) The players want to fight for the future players...ok fair, but why not propose a CBA length of 15-20 years? That means more security... You know that the owners will take another money grab when the new cba expires...so they put themselves/future players in the same situation in 8 years.

So if I am correct, the deal was not finalized because of the 5-year (or 7-year in case of re-sign) limit on contracts? How many players actually have longer contracts then that? Maybe 2%??? Is this issue really so important for the PA that they are willing to lose the entire season for it? It seems the owners have no problem with that... And why did Fehr did not put the latest offer to vote to the players? Then you will really know if the players find these contract limits a real issue. I do not understand...

Yes that is fair, because of that $1B there are costs of $989 leaving a profit of $11M of which 91% is going to her.

Well...not entirely true. Most 'top' teams are in great debt. Most owners invest hundereds of millions in players, once an owner leaves...no more team. The problem in European soccer is that the FIFA and UEFA do not have the balls to stand up to the teams with great debts.

Decertification is certainly an option for the players to put pressure on the owners. However it is brings a huge risk with it...either the owners will cave and offer something better or they will fight in court, which means the season is gone. The question is...will the players want to go that road over $180M over the next 5 years? I also think that decertification opens the ability for the owners to bring in replacement players...although I am not sure of it. If that is good thing...is another discussion. Also wondering if someone who currently has a contract with the NHL (via the expired CBA) can sign a contract with the NHL as a 'replacement' player???

I am optimistic the NHLPA will come with a linked proposal, something like this: Year 1: 57.0% Year 2: 55.1% Year 3: 53.1% Year 4: 52.0% Year 5: 51.2% Based on 5% revenue growth annually + keeping old contracts at 57% value.

So...what chances are that the NHLPA presents a full proposal with linked revenue by Wednesday? Anyone optimistic that happening?

Ah, thanks for clarifying. But I do have some questions. 1) What are the chances that the owners are willing to pay the losses from their own pocket? The longer the lockout continues the more games are lossed and the more the owners have to pay from their own pocket. Wouldn't that decrease the chances the owners are willing to pay it out of there own pocket? 2) In case the season is canceled, will the PA still demands that the owners pay the lost salaries from their own pocket (or maybe partially)? 3) Simple math used: - Revenue was $3.3B last year = $1.89B salaries (57%) - Revenue will be estimated $2.73B (they are talking about a 68-game schedule possible from 1st December, meaning 14 games are lost = 17% lost = 17% revenue lost) = $1.56B salaries (57%) - That means a difference of $330M in player salaries...who's going to pay that?

The article suggests the nhlpa demands 64-70% of the revenue in year 1. That can't be right, can it?

http://www.startribune.com/sports/blogs/176190261.html “I thought a lot about since what I said, I don’t question Craig Leipold and Minnesota with regards to negotiating our contracts in good faith. I don’t question that. That might have came off wrong. I don’t question that. It’s just frustrating. We just want to play. We support Don in what he’s doing. Obviously you sign a contract, and you want to hold true to that. I think, and I hope, everything works out.” Do you feel that in the back of Leipold’s mind, he figured you’d take a haircut: “No, I honestly don’t feel that. It’s easy to think that or it might come off like that, but honestly, I know they’re good people. And I know they wouldn’t negotiate thinking, ‘OK, let’s give them this because it’ll end up being this.’ Because that’s not the kind of the people they are. So that came off wrong [in Suter’s original comments to ESPN the Magazine].”

Are you serious? Ofcourse I don't mean the difference between both proposals at this moment, that would push the date endlessly. You can hold out for the next five years and still have the same argument. I ment that the players did not want to give up any cent of their contract but as per today they essentialy gave up 25% of their salary. And if I were a player and the PA said to me that they did not have a solid strategy for the current situation I would be furious.

Lol @ players having ideals. If they really would stand up they should stay in na and not flee to europe. Even if some teams fold...it means less jobs.

And what strategy are they going to use to prevent more loss to their contract? Well it actually doesn't matter all that much since the total salaries lost is already more than their own last proposal as opposed to the owners one.

Well since we already surpassed the point that a 82-game regaular season is possible, they won't see their full salary whatsoever. It is now in damage control mode. That unless the players think a 82-game schedule is still possible...or the players think they will get a 82-game salary with a 60/70-game schedule... Otherwise I really really don't know what the player's end game is...

http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/10/27/the-fate-of-the-nhl-hangs-on-a-phantom-issue-peter-adler-says/

Did he forget the $10M signing fee which is not subject to future cba's already...lol