• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ogreslayer

2012 Lockout Watch

Rate this topic

906 posts in this topic

Worse than that, going from 57 to 46 is a 19.3% paycut.

I hope so, but this list is after how many days of negotiating?

The owners are really going for it here at the start. No arbitration, 5 year entry level contracts, ten years before a player is a UFA, AND notching down salaries by over 10%?? Those are all huge. Honestly on that list reducing salaries is probably the least aggressive and most realistic starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From New York Post:

This might be the most overlooked part of yesterday's "leak".

Agreed. It's why their demands are so ridiculous.

They not only want to ratchet down players salary based on revenue, they want to reduce it even more by changing the definition of "revenue."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Lord,

Please allow the millionaires on both sides to get what they want so I can attend the 3 games this year I can afford.

And I can watch the three Red Wing games that are televised where I live. Granted no basketball, baseball, or football games are playing that night.

Dabura likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

A reduction from 57% to 46% would take almost $300 million out of the players' share, and you can bet that they'll fight this point aggressively.

With the salary cap currently set at $70.2 million, this move would knock it down to $56.7 million, and you can bet that the only practical way to accomplish this would involve a rollback on all existing contracts of roughly 20%, just like they did in 2005.

UFA status

Currently, NHL players have to achieve age 27 or have 7 years of North American pro experience to reach unrestricted free agent status, a timeline which is longer than in the other major pro sports. ...Pro athletes place tremendous value on the chance for unrestricted free agency, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them concede a bit on the financial side in order to move this timeline up.

Arbitration

So few players actually end up in an arbitration hearing that this shouldn't turn into a major battlefield, but when combined with the 10-year timeline to UFA status, this would take away a useful negotiating tool for most players in the league (since only a minority make it to 10 years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

It is funny to see the word "cordial" in describing yesterday's session.

They meant to say "cardiac" :)

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

"Cordial labour talks" might mean there's booze with lunch.

Cordial just means Burke wasn't allowed in... ie. There's booze with lunch :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cordial just means Burke wasn't allowed in... ie. There's booze with lunch :)

With the way the owners are acting, I think you mean there's lunch with the booze.

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.

55fan likes this

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

A counter-proposal is almost ready for tabling.

Based on what the owners led with I wouldn't be surprised if the players asked for salaries be 75% of revenue, 40 game seasons, and gold plated hockey pucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0