905 replies to this topic

[cusimano_brothers]

"We believe that we made a significant, meaningful step", said Bettman.

In "Bettmanland", one can only imagine what he means.

[kylee]

Just saw that on KK .. It's very uplifting to hear that to say the least.

oh yea in the words of the great Scotty Bowman ... "Is that f**king Aaron Ward out there?"

Scotty Boman actually said that? What a legend

[amato]

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

[stevie for president]

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

Also this...

"

The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow."

Link:

http://www.rgj.com/usatoday/article/57385074?odyssey=mod%7cnewswell%7cimg%7cSports%7cp

So the Red Wings could potentially be in a great position to absorb some salary dumps, depending on what these adjustments are. As it stands now, they would be a little more than $800k under a $58mil cap.

[SwedeLundin77]

So with what has been released so far... do people feel more confident about a deal getting done? This seems a ton more reasonable coming from the league. The salary cap rollback isn't too crazy and I like how the league has said they don't want to roll-back players' salaries (good idea, because that would have surely pissed off the players). The wings would be in good shape to sign a 2-3 million dollar defensemen or trade away some forward pieces for a more lucrative contract.... In either case, I hope this moves the process ahead and gives us a full season, or close to one.

[Dabura]

Someone call Terry Tate.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

Just get something done so we can start the season on time.

[haroldsnepsts]

Just saw this on twitter.. NHL's proposed salery caps.

@DarrenDreger: Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M

The salary cap dropping that much would be ridiculous.

And then 2019, lockout.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

And then 2019, lockout.

In 2005, I thought "2012, hell, that's 7 years. Who cares about a lockout then. That's light years away"

And here we are...

[haroldsnepsts]

Also this...

"

The NHL is not asking for any rollback in current contracts, suggesting that the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow."

Link:

http://www.rgj.com/u...ll|img|Sports|p

So the Red Wings could potentially be in a great position to absorb some salary dumps, depending on what these adjustments are. As it stands now, they would be a little more than $800k under a $58mil cap.

Am I missing something?

How do teams, who were basing their decisions on the projected $70 million cap, shed $10+ million without any salary rollback?

The new NHL deal also includes redefining what constitutes hockey related revenue. So when they say the eventual split is 50/50, that's not really the case. They're taking money out of the pot while also asking the players to take less of it.

And it sounds like the NHL's proposal still didn't address revenue sharing. This offer at least doesn't sound completely insane. But the league is standing firm on ignoring revenue sharing as a solution and expect the players to bear the burden of saving these struggling franchises by "partnering" with the league.

In 2005, I thought "2012, hell, that's 7 years. Who cares about a lockout then. That's light years away"

And here we are...

The only hope is Bettman won't be commissioner then, otherwise, I wouldn't make any hockey-based plans in 2019.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros]

Am I missing something?

How do teams, who were basing their decisions on the projected $70 million cap, shed $10+ million without any salary rollback?

The new NHL deal also includes redefining what constitutes hockey related revenue. So when they say the eventual split is 50/50, that's not really the case. They're taking money out of the pot while also asking the players to take less of it.

And it sounds like the NHL's proposal still didn't address revenue sharing. This offer at least doesn't sound completely insane. But the league is standing firm on ignoring revenue sharing as a solution and expect the players to bear the burden of saving these struggling franchises by "partnering" with the league.


The only hope is Bettman won't be commissioner then, otherwise, I wouldn't make any hockey-based plans in 2019.

I haven't really been following the issue at all, so I'll ask you, do you think they'll get something done in time for the season to start?

[frankgrimes]

Either the dwarf is the most stupid commissioner ever or this is the NHLs way of presenting another insulting offer to the player all along?

You can't have a 58 million salary, when some teams are already near the cap not exactly business science ey? The players would be incredible dumb to even think about accepting that, it is not a solution and would mean, tons of players are getting waived or sent straight to the AHL. I trust Fehr so hopefully they don't accept it.

Once again the owners fail to provide solutions, other than taking the players money in orer to fix their own damn system. I'm sure in his little land, with his little but heavily expensive car this joke of a commissioner dreams about no NHLPA what a disgrace.

I think 66 million would be a more reasonable salary,why not keep the status quo and just drop the salary a bit?

[RippedOnNitro]

The latest proposal of the owners sounds like they gave in significantly in regards to their first proposal (from 43% to 50%). With the NHLPA set at keeping the 57% they need to drop significantly as well.

The revenue regarding hockey-related and non-hockey-related income was negotiable according to both sides if I remember correctly.

I just don't see how teams can get under the cap without a rollback but to send players to the AHL. However players would still be guaranteed their original salary which I think is important to the NHLPA.

I guess the salary cap is negotiable when the NHLPA is willing to drop from their 57%...???

And for the record...both proposals from the NHL and NHLPA does not solve the problem regarding revenue sharing amongst teams.

Just don't count on getting my sympathy vote when players reject to take a 7% drop in salary in the NHL, but still go play in Europe for a small percentage of their NHL salary.

[Nightfall]

The latest proposal of the owners sounds like they gave in significantly in regards to their first proposal (from 43% to 50%). With the NHLPA set at keeping the 57% they need to drop significantly as well.

The revenue regarding hockey-related and non-hockey-related income was negotiable according to both sides if I remember correctly.

I just don't see how teams can get under the cap without a rollback but to send players to the AHL. However players would still be guaranteed their original salary which I think is important to the NHLPA.

I guess the salary cap is negotiable when the NHLPA is willing to drop from their 57%...???

And for the record...both proposals from the NHL and NHLPA does not solve the problem regarding revenue sharing amongst teams.

Just don't count on getting my sympathy vote when players reject to take a 7% drop in salary in the NHL, but still go play in Europe for a small percentage of their NHL salary.

I have to agree.

In order for a deal to be made, both sides have to be willing to give up something. The first proposals really don't address the issue. This one, while giving up some things, doesn't address the issue. As has been mentioned by others, it just opens the door for another lockout due to horrible spending practices by the owners and inflated contracts for the players.

[haroldsnepsts]

I haven't really been following the issue at all, so I'll ask you, do you think they'll get something done in time for the season to start?

They still have a couple weeks so who knows, but it seems unlikely the season would start on time.

Either the dwarf is the most stupid commissioner ever or this is the NHLs way of presenting another insulting offer to the player all along?

You can't have a 58 million salary, when some teams are already near the cap not exactly business science ey? The players would be incredible dumb to even think about accepting that, it is not a solution and would mean, tons of players are getting waived or sent straight to the AHL. I trust Fehr so hopefully they don't accept it.

Once again the owners fail to provide solutions, other than taking the players money in orer to fix their own damn system. I'm sure in his little land, with his little but heavily expensive car this joke of a commissioner dreams about no NHLPA what a disgrace.

I think 66 million would be a more reasonable salary,why not keep the status quo and just drop the salary a bit?

And I'm not really clear on whether or not the owners kept the other insane parts of their initial offer. 10 years until reaching UFA status. 5 year rookie contracts, etc.

[sibiriak]

IMHO, this is what the league's real offer is. The first one was just to scare the union into being more malleable. The owners want 50/50 split, and to exclude some revenues from it. Probably the types of revenues that they expect to grow the fastest in the future, like merchandising, ad revenue or the like. Maybe concessions too.

As to the salary cap being lowered, that would basically automatically cut all players salaries by the necessary percentage, and escrow is already there as a tool to achieve that. No official salary rollback will happen, the players just won't see any escrow money returned to them at the end of the season. I forgot what is the percentage of salary that the players have to give up into the escrow fund, but it is definitely over 15%, so the 70 mil. salary cap can go down as low as 58 mil. without having to actually reduce the salary numbers in the actual player contracts.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

I have to agree.

In order for a deal to be made, both sides have to be willing to give up something. The first proposals really don't address the issue. This one, while giving up some things, doesn't address the issue. As has been mentioned by others, it just opens the door for another lockout due to horrible spending practices by the owners and inflated contracts for the players.

What do owners giving up here? I only see players getting smaller share.

As to the salary cap being lowered, that would basically automatically cut all players salaries by the necessary percentage, and escrow is already there as a tool to achieve that. No official salary rollback will happen, the players just won't see any escrow money returned to them at the end of the season. I forgot what is the percentage of salary that the players have to give up into the escrow fund, but it is definitely over 15%, so the 70 mil. salary cap can go down as low as 58 mil. without having to actually reduce the salary numbers in the actual player contracts.

But the cap number is calculated based on contract value. Escrow does not play into it. Teams would still be over the 58M cap even if they only pay players 58M in real money.

[sibiriak]

But the cap number is calculated based on contract value. Escrow does not play into it. Teams would still be over the 58M cap even if they only pay players 58M in real money.

That's a good point. However, the TSN article (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404044 )said this: "The league's proposal did not include an across-the-board reduction (or "rollback") to existing contract values. Necessary adjustments would be financed entirely from a combination of modified contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and from the players' Escrow contributions."
So maybe they will count the cap as actual salaries paid out, after escrow, rather than the contract numbers.

Edited by sibiriak, 29 August 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[Buppy]

This doesn't seem to be a meaningful step to me.

I'm not sure how they're getting the numbers they are, but if a $70.2M cap is based off 57% players' share, and the only thing that changes is the %, then 51.6% (per TSN) should give a cap of around $64M. $58M would equate to around 46%.

They are either reducing the estimated revenue or, more likely, reducing what is considered "Hockey Related Revenue" (which already seems to be less than what owners actually make). And if the cap numbers proposed are fixed, then if revenues grow faster than expected, the players lose out on even more. Overall, it looks just as ridiculous as the first offer, IMO.

[SwedeLundin77]

Slow day for news on the issue.... usually it's been pretty quick and the meeting's have been short.... hopefully this is a good thing and they are producing meaningful conversation and moving the process forward... We'll see.