905 replies to this topic

[esteef]

Hockey players and owners are "normal" people that are just more successful fiscally than you (and I). Good for them, it's free market economics at work. These posts harping on the amount of money being made reek of jealousy and class envy. Let's be happy that players get payed well in the NHL; it's a big that reason that many of them are in this league... and you get to enjoy watching them.

It's not class envy at all. It's being disgusted watching greed take over the sport we love.

esteef

[RippedOnNitro]

Hockey players and owners are "normal" people that are just more successful fiscally than you (and I). Good for them, it's free market economics at work. These posts harping on the amount of money being made reek of jealousy and class envy. Let's be happy that players get payed well in the NHL; it's a big that reason that many of them are in this league... and you get to enjoy watching them.

I don't care that a player makes 4 million a year, but what bothers me is that they won't settle for 3.7 million. Which is still a huge amount to get paid for playing your favorite sport.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

I don't care that a player makes 4 million a year, but what bothers me is that they won't settle for 3.7 million. Which is still a huge amount to get paid for playing your favorite sport.

Players settling for less money would not result in lower prices for consumers but in more profits for owners. There is a difference here.

[LeftWinger]

Just witnessed the Wings team plane being towed out of the hanger and being prepped out here at Metro, I SOOOOO was hoping to log on here and see a thread named "CBA settled!" But no....

I guess they are just getting the plane ready for the season, just in case it does get settled soon!

Here's to getting this settled soon! Let's get the season going!

[drwscc]

Players settling for less money would not result in lower prices for consumers but in more profits for owners. There is a difference here.

The players getting what they want won't lower prices for consumers either. If anything, prices are going to go up. That's an invalid argument. Everyone is being greedy. It's millionaires vs billionaires squabbling over crumbs.

[RippedOnNitro]

Players settling for less money would not result in lower prices for consumers but in more profits for owners. There is a difference here.

You mean bailing out teams in non-hockey markets? I guess players still want to keep those teams around due to job security?

[WizardOfOz30]

Hockey players and owners are "normal" people that are just more successful fiscally than you (and I). Good for them, it's free market economics at work. These posts harping on the amount of money being made reek of jealousy and class envy. Let's be happy that players get payed well in the NHL; it's a big that reason that many of them are in this league... and you get to enjoy watching them.

It's defnintely not envy, if they have the ability to make that much money good for them. I guess being a single mom that struggles with the bills every month I have a hard time having sympathy for the guys making millions of dollars and arguing over a few hundred thousand. Give me one of these guys' million dollar salary for just one year and I could make that work for a very long time. It's all about perspective and once you get that much money giving up even a little must seem like a hardship.

[cusimano_brothers]

Six years isn't a very long time. The players have to maximize what they can get when they can get it.

[Echolalia]

The more I think about it, the more I think the players are in the driver's seat. Since the last lockout, international leagues have really fluorished and have been marketed well. There is more interest today in European leagues, and the KHL especially than ever before. If I'm on the board of governors, I would be scared to death of letting another lockout occur, simply to keep rival leagues from gaining momentum against the NHL. We have already seen several players bolt overseas to chase money and glory. What happens when the NHL doesn't exist for a year and most of the league's players play for the KHL? How many of them decide they prefer the higher paycheck in Russia? How hard does the KHL fight to entice players to stay?

[cusimano_brothers]

Maybe if NBC hadn't have coughed that $200-million dollars so soon they might have put some pressure on the owners and Uncle Gary.

[Z Winged Dangler]

I would imagine they'll have a buy out process similar to what they had in 2005. Back then, teams could buy out players at 2/3rds the cost of their remaining contract, which wouldn't count towards the cap but the player couldn't resign with the same team. Back in 2005 the Wings bought out DMac, Hatcher, & Whitney if I remember correctly.

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.

[Z Winged Dangler]

Players settling for less money would not result in lower prices for consumers but in more profits for owners. There is a difference here.

That is for the owners that turn a profit. Which is 12 out of 30. That is why they need the players to take less money to get that number at least above 20. Some teams may just have to face the horrible reality of relocation to balance out the economics in the league....Yotes, Devils, Islanders, you get the idea. Set the cap at 65 mil next year with a percentage rollback from 70.2 which is approximately .09259 if you divide 65/70.2. So that would entail a salary rollback of a modest 7.41 % so we'll just round it to 7.5 %. Then you raise the cap annually as proposed for 6 years but by 1 million reaching the 71 million in the 6th year, but with less damage control for GM's to endure to start this season and you will have every team automatically cap compliant with the 7.5 % rollback which the players should not have major issues with. If you make 6 mil, you will now make 5.55 mil. Still making bank but not giving back excessive amounts.

[Pskov Wings Fan]

You mean bailing out teams in non-hockey markets? I guess players still want to keep those teams around due to job security?

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.

[RippedOnNitro]

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...

[ogreslayer]

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.

[sibiriak]

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

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

[Ally]

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?

[RippedOnNitro]

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

This is where I got the info from: http://www.canada.co...9103/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, 31 August 2012 - 04:34 AM.

[RippedOnNitro]

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/i...s.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!!!

[cusimano_brothers]