• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Then both sides need to be part of this bailout. Players through lower payroll, owners through revenue sharing. I haven't heard anything about revenue sharing in NHL's proposal.

Unfortunately the nhlpa stands on keeping the players at 57 per cent in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they buy players out then they lose them so how would this help the teams salary cap situations when they would have to sign someone to replace them? Say the Wild have cap trouble, which they will cause they're currently a couple mil from the 70.2 mil cap, and they have no choice but to buy out a more expensive player or 2 to be cap compliant. Say Heatley and Gilbert, which wouldn't be that bad to get rid of anyways, but that shaves 11 mil off and now they are at 66 mil, they still need 2 roster spots filled with 2 mil remaining on their cap. The NHL's proposal wouldn't work for most teams that have already committed funds to the "already proposed cap" unless there's a salary roll back like last time. It's impossible to shave 12.2 mil without players current salaries taking the hit.

just found this quote in the article provided:

Well, perhaps the easiest way to look at this is in terms of the salary cap. If this deal proceeds as planned, then the 2012-13 cap would be $58 million. Which, by the way, if there’s no rollback of current salaries or other adjustments, would mean that 16 teams are over the proposed cap based on the current figures from Cap Geek. The Boston Bruins and Minnesota Wild are currently exceeding the proposed salary cap by more than $10 million.

Pretty much says what i was getting at.

The twist, evidently, in the NHL's latest proposal is that they're not asking for a salary rollback but instead increasing the amount of a player's salary that goes into escrow. So instead of the NHL saying "We're just going to shave 24% off the top like we did last time" it's more of a "We're going to withhold 24% more in safekeeping for you, you know like tax withholding, and you might actually see some of it back after the season. It's what the government does, right?" type of thing. If they're going to have that many teams over the new proposed cap, I wouldn't be too surprised if the cap hit turns into an actual dollars paid per season minus escrow amount in order to get the half of the league currently well over the proposed cap below it along w/ buy outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that it's hard to sympathize with either side of a millionaires vs billionaires discussion, especially one that's threatening this hundredaires ability to watch the only sport I actually care about this season BUT 1. The billionaires don't entertain me all season so I like them less and 2. Didn't the players try to push back the expiration of this CBA in order to avoid another lockout?

ideas: 1.lock them all in a room until they agree, jury-style.

2.take all the money that goes towards redesigning/ruining jerseys and use that to settle everything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the NHLPA proposal again. Your statement is factually incorrect.

This is where I got the info from: http://www.canada.com/news/NHLPA+tables+offer+league+says+players+willing+accept+less/7089103/story.html

"The proposal includes delinking the salary cap from hockey-related revenue and setting a fixed rate -- increasing by two per cent for the first year, four per cent for the second and six per cent for the third. Afterwards, the players would hold an option to have the fourth year revert back to the current system, where they are entitled to receive 57 per cent of all revenues."

Edited by RippedOnNitro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will wait and see if NHLPA is going to drop their demands as well in regards of their first offer.

At least the NHL is flexible according to NHL.com (http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=640748)

"We're not married to the structure, so if it's a good proposal [from the Union] and takes a different route, we're open to that," Daly said."

"The NHL is planning to take time to analyze the Union's proposal, and it is possible the sides continue to negotiate through the holiday weekend." <-- they better be!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The twist, evidently, in the NHL's latest proposal is that they're not asking for a salary rollback but instead increasing the amount of a player's salary that goes into escrow. So instead of the NHL saying "We're just going to shave 24% off the top like we did last time" it's more of a "We're going to withhold 24% more in safekeeping for you, you know like tax withholding, and you might actually see some of it back after the season. It's what the government does, right?" type of thing. If they're going to have that many teams over the new proposed cap, I wouldn't be too surprised if the cap hit turns into an actual dollars paid per season minus escrow amount in order to get the half of the league currently well over the proposed cap below it along w/ buy outs.

the NHL and NHLPA need to simplify the CBA. It's way more technical than it needs to be. Roll back all salaries 10%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The twist, evidently, in the NHL's latest proposal is that they're not asking for a salary rollback but instead increasing the amount of a player's salary that goes into escrow. So instead of the NHL saying "We're just going to shave 24% off the top like we did last time" it's more of a "We're going to withhold 24% more in safekeeping for you, you know like tax withholding, and you might actually see some of it back after the season. It's what the government does, right?" type of thing. If they're going to have that many teams over the new proposed cap, I wouldn't be too surprised if the cap hit turns into an actual dollars paid per season minus escrow amount in order to get the half of the league currently well over the proposed cap below it along w/ buy outs.

Isn't that basically rolling the salary back without calling it a rollback?

Either way the players end up with less money than the value of the contracts they signed with the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get technical, it is only an option for the union. Even if they exercise it, their average share for the life of the new CBA will certainly be lower than 57%. Also, the definition of the hockey related revenue is being changed, so the players would get 57% of the lesser total, which would be a defacto decrease in salary.

Not to mention the fact, that the current system was put in place by the NHL, who used the last lockout to roll over the players union and force them to accept this CBA. If you listened to Bettman speeches then, the expiring CBA was going to set he economic house of hockey in order. :ninja: And now the system they devised is suddenly favoring the players? FYI, average share of wages, salaries etc. in all the other industries of American economy is near 70%. So the owners are already getting a good deal.

What it amounts to is that the league appears to try to shake down the players at the end of each CBA period for as much as they can get away with. And lock them out if they resist. Rinse, lather, repeat every 4-5 years.

Personally, I resent their bully tactics that result in my loss of enjoyment of my favorite sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new proposal is just another way for the dwarf to say screw you. Does this moron really believe Fehr would stupid enough to not see the rollback?

I am starting to think some owners gave out these huge contracts expecting the players to take less again.

They won't roll over this time Europe would be more than happy to welcome them back. We need a new commiSsioner asap.

Owners should be embarassed by this offer.

Sent from my BlackBerry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#nolockout

[media]

[/media]

made with a lot of skill but still lame in its spirit. There are few guys running this league and giving players their contracts. They will do whatever they want. Players must be pleased that they were not offered 20-80 revenew share with strict cap at 40M. And those thinking that these are indeed fans bringing all these money to the owners, think again. If you're a fan you'll buy their product irrespective of how long it takes to get the season running simply because hockey is a unique sport. If you don't care about hockey you don't even know that there is a chance of lockout. Uniting and the rest of bla-bla-bla only matters for NHLPA bosses whose main aim is to get their salaries and not look pathetic in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event that there is a lockout, would the Detroit-Toronto Winter Classic be postponed until next season, or would they choose two new teams?

It would make sense to go with the teams they've chosen, but it would also make sense to not have a lock out, so there you go...

Share this post


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