-
Content Count
4,652 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Articles
Store
Downloads
Member Map
Everything posted by toby91_ca
-
I had heard that they discussed the 4 different proposals on the NHLPA conference call today and the merits of each....with the view to decide which to present or to present all this afternoon to the NHL.
-
This was tweeted by Elliotte Friedman around the time the NHL was arriving at NHLPA headquarters (about 100 metres or so down the street as I look out the window). Fan named Barry Murphy told Bettman that as a fan he feels disrespected and neglected...what are you going to do show us you care about us? Bettman: we're "going to get a deal done." Was an interesting, respectful exchange.
-
Backstrom appears to have signed a contract with the KHL...flying out tonight to Moscow. If true, it can't be a good sign.
-
Trying to stay on top of this today....hoping for some good news. Personally, I think today we might know whether there will be a deal in the next week or so, or the two sides go away for a long time and the season is close to lost.
-
Tweet per Andy McDonald: Looking forward to seeing League's response to todays meeting. Really believe we are moving towards them and quality negotiations have begun
-
Meeting pushed back to 2:30pm at the earliest...supposed to be 1pm. PA call with the executive Board pushed everything back and big 4 might have a pre-meeting. (per LeBrun). Not sure if any of this is good, bad, or neither. I can make some good arguments for any of those.
-
Bob McKenzie fears it could get fugly this afternoon. He hopes he's wrong and so do I.
-
Cap would seem irrelevant for the first year anyway since the teams could go over it. The cap isn't what controls the players' salaries, that just allows teams to be competitive (i.e. one team can't overspend everyone). At the end of the day, if every team spent to the cap, the players would be giving money back at the end of the year.
-
This is how the math works: 2011-12 revenue = $3.303B, therefore, using a 5% growth, the revenue for 2012-13 woudl be $3.468 billion, the players woudl be entitled to 50% = $1.734....$149 million less than the $1.883 billion the players rec'd last year. So, that assumes that salaries will be the same as last year (i.e. no rollback), but too simplified as some players would have gotten raises, etc. Doesn't really matter though, anyway you look at it, the players would be taking a 12.3% hit. Sure, they may be able to collect on their existing signed contracts if revenues continue to increase, but the current set up would cause the players salaries not to grow as league revenues grow...against the main partnership philosophy. Salaries will grow as revenues grow, but the players need to shave off the 12.3% hit first.
-
I would much rather Zetterberg be in Toronto right now....seeing as he is supposed to be part of the negotiating committee.
-
I'm somewhat worried about that, but at the same time, understand that the players cannot come out and say they like the deal, it would kill any ability to negotiate off of it. I'm hoping the players don't love the current deal, but are hoping some negotiations will take place this week and they will accept wherever they get next week. Wishful thinking, but that's what I'm going with for now.
-
That's not really the point. The point is that is that the players will be paying themselves to cover intitial shortfalls. If 50% fo revenues are not enough this year to cover salaries, the players will just take less money later to cover the difference....so they might get 45% of revnues in a later year for example. The league suggesting no rollbacks is completely bogus.
-
Tied with Briere
-
Existing contracts are only honoured in full if there is sufficient future growth such that 50% of revenues covers those existing contracts.
-
Well, two different things: 1) getting best deal for your side vs. 2) best of the game. Both sides probably lose sight of #2 in CBA negotiations. Honestly, I'm not sure if pad PR on the owners hurts the game that much, but bad PR on the players would. The owners now have PR on their side and if a deal doesn't get done soon, it will all be the players fault. The owners are the good guys, but when the players eventually come back to play, would the fans want to come and support those bad guy players? The hope is tough that bad press is avoided by the league now pressuring the PA. To avoid the bad press, they would have to move closer to the league offer. It's actually a pretty crafty negotiation tactic and I'm sure the PA is pissed that they weren't the first to come with the next offer (their fault though).
-
This is true. I voted for the 3rd option though, maybe because of a bit of hopefullness though. I really hope and somewhat think what will happen is that the NHLPA will be very aggressive with this offer and do their best to negotiate a better deal of the next week, but then whatever is on the table at that time, I bet the players will be given an opportunity to vote.....largely because of the PR move made by the league. Then NHLPA may get to a spot where they don't feel the offer is good enough, but if the majority of the players are willing to accept it, then that's what they'll do I guess.
-
It would be extremely foolish to think that Yzerman (or any player for the matter) could have kept a consistent scoring pace in the first half of his career and his second half. I think you are overestimating the impact of him putting his team first. You could probably take any player in history and you will likely see some signficant declines in later years. If Gretzky maintained the same pace in his last 10 years as he did in his first 10 years, he'd have scored 3,674 points, not 2,857. Injury + age, same for Yzerman, is the main reason for decline.
-
It hurts the players. It is cap space used up whether the player is playing or not. If an $8 million dollar player retires and has 4 years left on his deal, that's $32 million that could have gone to other players, but in this case, it wouldn't.
-
I agree that PR should mean nothing and most everyone else would agree. But I can guarantee you that both the NHL and the NHLPA see it as very important (can't quite figure out why totally, but have ideas on that). The NHL saw it as so important to hire an external consultant to help them with their PR spin.
-
Here is what it means: Existing contracts at up to $1.8 billion per year. Af 50% share, if revenues are $3.5 billion this year, there will be a $50 million shortfall ($3.5 billion *50%, less the $1.8 billion contracted to players). So, the players will still get their $1.8 billion, no rollback, but it will be taken off future earnings as follows. If revenues go up to $4 billion in year 2, the players would be entitled to $2 billion (50%), but they'd only get $1.95 billion becauase you'd take off the $50 million used in year one for the shortfall. The big problem is that the players want their contracts honored as issued, but those contracts won't be paid in full unless revenues increase in future years. So, if revenues stay the same, the players will be taking a 12.3% rollback in salaries. The NHL can spin the PR on this issue anyway they want, but the current mechanism amounts to a rollback and isn't a partnership where players would share in growth. I think there is something there to negotiate off of though. Maybe keep it similar but change the percentages a bit, phase into 50%. I don't think they'll get to existing contracts being fully honored, but I think there is room to negotiate getting something closer. I'd be most of the players would be willint to give up a little bit of future growth earnings if they are able to preserve current contracts. I'd be the NHLPA will negotiate off this as much as they can in the next week and then take it to a vote of all the players and see where everyone stands.
-
The NHL's way of suggesting their will be no rollback on existing contracts, which is BS really, but from the general public point of view, they might not see that, which = PR win for the NHL. Going from 57% to 50% would amount to a 12.3% reduction in the cap and the league would normally say that all existing contracts would be rolled back by 12.3% to accomplish that. The PA is dead set against a rollback and would prefer to phase in a reduction in %. The NHL's answer to that is this make whole provision, but from what I can tell (haven't read the actual proposal yet, but will do that) all it means is that the players will keep their full contract for this year, but where that goes over the 50%, they'll make up for it by taking less in later years (i.e. the players paying the players vs. the owners playing the players). Regardless of how you look at it, there would be a 50/50 split starting now, which = 12.3% paycut.....but it might work out to something like 57% this year followed by 45%, 45%, 45%, etc.
-
There are tons of issues, but two big ones: - players will take a big hit in current salaries. The NHL says they aren't asking for a rollback, but at 50% right away, that's a 12.3% rollback. While current year salaries will remain intact, the function to allow that would be the players taking less money in later years. So, if a player is currently signed to $5M for the next 5 years, they might get their $5M this year, but maybe only $3M in each of the following 4 years. - from the looks of it, the definition of HRR is still cloudy, the league says it's unchanged, but the PA is not so sure and will look to clarify that.
-
Akward translation, but this seems to suggest players that went to Europe to play have been asked not to play for those clubs until at least October 23rd. Not sure how credible this is seeing as I haven't seen it pop up anywhere in North American news, but I'll look around http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhokej.idnes.cz%2Fhracska-asociace-doporucila-hokejistum-nhl-aby-nikde-nehrali-p5g-%2Fhokej.aspx%3Fc%3DA121017_105034_hokej_cig
-
Here's a decent summary of the proposal. The good news is that the defnition of HRR seems to be unchanged from the last CBA. http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19780/breaking-down-the-leagues-proposal
-
The more details I see coming out of the league's proposal yesterday, the more pessimistic I'm getting about a potential deal in the short term. I guess it will depend on how reasonable the league will be in negotiating off that offer and how reasonable the NHLPA will be in their requests.