#121
Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:02 AM

#122
Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:02 AM
#123
Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:09 PM
"...that was me with the semen thing."--Dabura
#124
Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:34 PM
Honestly the idiocy of this first proposal from the league side surprised me.Meh - no surprises.
I didn't think negotiations would be a piece of cake, but I didn't think the owners would be going for such huge concessions from the players, given they announced that the cap and therefore revenue went up yet again just a few weeks ago.
And I think it's important to remember that the players already have their salary tied to revenue in spite of the fact that their job has pretty much zero control over league revenues. That is a big risk and concession on their part. But now that revenue has gone up so players salaries have as well, the owners already want to restructure things to make it even more favorable.
#125
Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:10 PM
Sources within the industry last night told The Post the league is not only demanding the players accept a cut in their percentage of the gross from the current 57 percent to 46 percent, but also recalculating the definition of Hockey Related Revenue so the pot from which the owners and players share would be drastically reduced.
This might be the most overlooked part of yesterday's "leak".
"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".
- Harry James Benson, CBE.
#126
Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:11 PM
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.
Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan.
We not score, is hard to win. - Pavel Datsyuk #13
#127
Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:14 PM
Agreed. It's why their demands are so ridiculous.From New York Post:
This might be the most overlooked part of yesterday's "leak".
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."
#128
Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:33 PM
Please allow the millionaires on both sides to get what they want so I can attend the 3 games this year I can afford.
- haroldsnepsts, Dabura, Hockeymom1960 and 3 others like this
#129
Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:51 PM
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
#130
Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:53 PM
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).
#131
Posted 14 July 2012 - 05:28 PM
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
#132
Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:19 PM
#133
Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:28 AM
Edited by frankgrimes, 15 July 2012 - 03:28 AM.

Thank you so much perfect human being #5
Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!
N ational
#135
Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:01 PM
Edited by Johnz96, 15 July 2012 - 10:02 PM.
#136
Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:06 AM
"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".
- Harry James Benson, CBE.
#137
Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:36 PM
They meant to say "cardiac"It is funny to see the word "cordial" in describing yesterday's session.
#138
Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:00 PM
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).
#139
Posted 19 July 2012 - 09:33 PM
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, 19 July 2012 - 09:34 PM.

Thank you so much perfect human being #5
Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!
N ational
#140
Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:29 AM
"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".
- Harry James Benson, CBE.
Similar Topics
| Topic | Forum | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jimmy D Speaks out on Lockout, fined $250k |
General Discussion | ShanahanMan |
|
|
|
NHL penalties/suspensions for hits getting out of hand.
|
General Discussion | jollymania |
|
|
|
NHL.com Bracket Challenge
|
General Discussion | SaCkaveli20 |
|
|
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: cba, lockout
Hockey Discussion Forums →
General Discussion →
IF there is a lockout, where will our players likely end up?Started by dirtydangles, 17 Aug 2012 |
|
|
||
Hockey Discussion Forums →
General Discussion →
What do you consider a fair CBA?Started by 55fan, 14 Aug 2012 |
|
|
||
Hockey Discussion Forums →
General Discussion →
Sal Galatioto Predicts NHL Cap & Floor DroppingStarted by MrBest7, 11 Jul 2012 |
|
|
||
Hockey Discussion Forums →
General Discussion →
Union to OK $70.2 Million Offseason Salary CapStarted by Datsyukian-Deke, 28 Jun 2012 |
|
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



This topic is locked








