• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1) reduce player revenue from 57% to 52%

2) seven year contract limits

3) 28 years old, 7 years in the NHL for UFA status

4) keep entry level contracts 3 years

5) keep salary arbitration

drop the puck Oct. 11th to kick off the regular season.

Instead, this will likely get ugly.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of what the owner's demands may mean (and it ain't pretty).

http://www.onthefore...ncy-negotiation

Salary reduction

UFA status

Arbitration

a 7 year max contract sounds good, but i think 7 years in the NHL for ufa is still too long. i would prefer something like 5 years for ufa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point for the PAnhl will now be to counter with an even offer, to send out a clear message. I really hope the players take this as an insult and Fehr will piss off Butchman with his counteroffer. Should we lose another season it is the owners fault and hopefully the last time we have seen this idiot as a commissioner. I mean how can you justify 3 lockout under 1 commissioner?

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96

I think you may be overestimating the intelligence of the owners and underestimating the stubbornness of Bettman

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to hear a convincing reason why the salary cap figure is an AVERAGE over the life of the contract, as opposed to an accurate reflection of the salary paid in that year. If teams like Philadelphia and New Jersey want to front-load the crap out of contracts for Weber and Kovalchuk, let them. But if that's the case, the salary number should reflect what they actually are "worth".

I suppose doing that could lead to other problems, like screwy contracts like: 8M, 2M, 8M, 2M...but what would that accomplish? In that scenario, you could go for expensive one-year deals on veteran players to match the "low salary" years in a star's contract.

Another option would be to make rules against front-loading, or...(wait for it), have a maximum length of contract! Doesn't that exist in other sports, like the NBA? Does it really benefit anyone other than the particular player's bank account to have these guys signed for 10-15 years? Look at the DiPietro and Luongo situations. Heck, Luongo might even want to leave, but it's pretty hard to move contracts that are such long-term commitments (well, unless you play 39 games for Columbus like Jeff Carter did).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop bitching about the front-loaded contracts o u r GM invented them and there is nothing wrong, really. It is a gamble and a big one at that, but in most cases both sides win the GMs are getting to lock up their top players for more cap friendly deals and the players are getting stability for the rest of their career.

Will be so funny seeing the players asking for the moon too and telling the NHL to shut up or put up.

Edited by frankgrimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essay from a player's perspective: http://www.cbc.ca/sp...-agreement.html

Interesting read

It is a pretty interesting read. I wonder who the player is?

To me the best point he makes is:

“Take more money from players” isn’t a viable solution for a successful business model. The owners don’t want to fix what are the real issues at hand.

His proposed soft-cap/luxury tax system I think is an interesting one as well, though I agree that it'll likely never happen.

And touches on another big point that doesn't get talked about a lot, but is starting to with the new CBA negotiations. Hockey Related Revenue. Not only do owners want to reduce the percentage of HRR that the players get, they want to change what constitutes HRR. And it's safe to say they're not going to end up with a larger number when they change the definition.

I'd be curious to know what currently does and does not constitute HRR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a pretty interesting read. I wonder who the player is?

To me the best point he makes is:

His proposed soft-cap/luxury tax system I think is an interesting one as well, though I agree that it'll likely never happen.

And touches on another big point that doesn't get talked about a lot, but is starting to with the new CBA negotiations. Hockey Related Revenue. Not only do owners want to reduce the percentage of HRR that the players get, they want to change what constitutes HRR. And it's safe to say they're not going to end up with a larger number when they change the definition.

I'd be curious to know what currently does and does not constitute HRR.

To summarize what is defined as HRR in the CBA:

1) Regular season & playoff gate receipts

2) Pre-season games

3) Special games with the exception of All-Star games

4) National, International, & National Digital broadcast revenues

5) Revenues from the NHL network

6) Local cable, over-the-air, satellite, & radio broadcasts

7) Club internet

8) Publications

9) In-arena & non-arena novelty sales

10) Concessions

11) Luxury boxes/suites & club/premium seats

12) Fixed signage & arena sponsorships

13) Temporary signage & club sponsorships

14) Dasherboard advertising

15) Parking

16) Other revenues i.e. league sponsored events, sale of game used equipment, sale of special memberships, etc.

And based on the legalese in the CBA, you have to assume owners are already playing fast & loose with what is & is not HRR within those categories and that they're going to try to get some of them removed in the next CBA. Not only do they want to reduce the player's share, they want to reduce the size of the pool they play in too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To summarize what is defined as HRR in the CBA:

1) Regular season & playoff gate receipts

2) Pre-season games

3) Special games with the exception of All-Star games

4) National, International, & National Digital broadcast revenues

5) Revenues from the NHL network

6) Local cable, over-the-air, satellite, & radio broadcasts

7) Club internet

8) Publications

9) In-arena & non-arena novelty sales

10) Concessions

11) Luxury boxes/suites & club/premium seats

12) Fixed signage & arena sponsorships

13) Temporary signage & club sponsorships

14) Dasherboard advertising

15) Parking

16) Other revenues i.e. league sponsored events, sale of game used equipment, sale of special memberships, etc.

And based on the legalese in the CBA, you have to assume owners are already playing fast & loose with what is & is not HRR within those categories and that they're going to try to get some of them removed in the next CBA. Not only do they want to reduce the player's share, they want to reduce the size of the pool they play in too.

Cool thanks for doing that homework.

Though the player in that article is stating that concessions and parking are already not a part of HRR. That's not to say he's correct, but it's what he claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From TSN:

Donald Fehr and the NHL players have a little more to mull over.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said the league tabled the remaining elements of its opening contract offer to the NHL Players' Association on Wednesday. It was an expansion on the opening proposal the league delivered July 13, which included a decreased share of hockey-related revenue, term limits on contracts and a 22 per cent salary rollback.

"We left some open issues that we have to get back to but the overwhelming scope of our proposals are on the table," Bettman said. "We walked the players and the Players' Association through those so-called 'nuts and bolts' proposals and the process continues."

For a lawyer, Uncle gary sure can turn a phrase.

Edited by cusimano_brothers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my option if we have another long lock out it could very well mean the end of the NHL as we know it. Yes the devoted fans will always come back but to get the on the edge fans this could be the death sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my option if we have another long lock out it could very well mean the end of the NHL as we know it. Yes the devoted fans will always come back but to get the on the edge fans this could be the death sentence

If there's another lockout, then I'm definitely in the "Fire Bettman" camp. It takes two sides to negotiate, but Bettman is ultimately the steward of the league. And three lockouts under his reign is just too much damage to the sport. Especially if this third one results in any lost games, because while the CBA could use some tweaking, the league is hardly in a dire situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this