Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

2012 Lockout Watch

cba lockout

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
905 replies to this topic

#121 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,337 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:02 AM

Meh - no surprises.

'Evolution' created by Offsides

#122 RedWingsRox

RedWingsRox

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,073 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 14 July 2012 - 11:02 AM

I can't imagine the GM's would be in agreement with contracts that are equal in every year. That would really handcuff them. I mean what do you do with a player in the tail end of his career if you can't taper down the salary in the last years ... even if 5 years was the limit. I'm not including the circumventing contracts where it goes on for 13 and it goes down to $1m/yr at the end, those should somehow be eliminated.

#123 BottleOfSmoke

BottleOfSmoke

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,608 posts
  • Location:It's so hot in the P

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:09 PM

While others have spent their off season spazzing about how the Wings are now a bottom feeder team, I have convinced myself to remain level headed and optimistic. I will warn everyone here and now that THIS negotiation process is my munchkin. I also recognize that the first couple proposals in negotiations are usually ludicrous, but I'm already finding myself fighting off a rage stroke at the thought of another lost season. There is NO excuse for a lockout, and I will degenerate to posting like a 12 year old if these ridiculously skewed proposals continue. Do you hear me Bettman? You won't like me when I post like a 12 year old!!!

Posted Image

LGWsig_zpsa75c5d1e.jpg

 


#124 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 01:34 PM

Meh - no surprises.

Honestly the idiocy of this first proposal from the league side surprised me.

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 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,409 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:10 PM

From New York Post:

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 FireCaptain

FireCaptain

    Whaddya mean I can't beat BOSTON?

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,800 posts
  • Location:Atoka, TN

Posted 14 July 2012 - 02:11 PM

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.


Most nights, my posts are brought to you by Heineken and sarcasm.
Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan.
We not score, is hard to win. - Pavel Datsyuk #13

#127 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:14 PM

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."

#128 Wingzman91

Wingzman91

    2nd Pair Defenseman

  • Bronze Booster
  • 308 posts
  • Location:Fort Myers, FL

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:33 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.

#129 WingsAlways

WingsAlways

    Grind Line 2.0

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 298 posts

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.

"Wow Chicago, you've won four Stanley Cups? Me too! - Kris Draper"


#130 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,550 posts

Posted 14 July 2012 - 03:53 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

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 heikks86

heikks86

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 145 posts
  • Location:Marquette, Mi

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 brett

brett

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,934 posts
  • Location:NJ

Posted 14 July 2012 - 07:19 PM

ha 10 years before being a ufa? players improve and players fall off. no way man

#133 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 03:28 AM

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, 15 July 2012 - 03:28 AM.

lidsretire2.jpg
 

Thank you so much perfect human being #5

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

Phase I: injury rattled roster Phase II: BABCOCK Phase III: Playoffs XXIII !


#134 predmonkee

predmonkee

    Top Prospect

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 59 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:02 PM

I believe the owners just added another key piece to their demands

6-the Moon

Shouldnt be a problem

#135 Johnz96

Johnz96

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,423 posts

Posted 15 July 2012 - 10:01 PM

I think you may be overestimating the intelligence of the owners and underestimating the stubbornness of Bettman

Edited by Johnz96, 15 July 2012 - 10:02 PM.


#136 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,409 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 19 July 2012 - 07:06 AM

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

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#137 sibiriak

sibiriak

    1st Line All-Star

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

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

They meant to say "cardiac" :)

#138 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Location:Twin Cities, MN

Posted 19 July 2012 - 03:00 PM

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).

#139 frankgrimes

frankgrimes

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,048 posts

Posted 19 July 2012 - 09:33 PM

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, 19 July 2012 - 09:34 PM.

lidsretire2.jpg
 

Thank you so much perfect human being #5

Welcome to hockeytown Jonas aka Lundquist 2 Gustavsson!

Phase I: injury rattled roster Phase II: BABCOCK Phase III: Playoffs XXIII !


#140 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,409 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:29 AM

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

"Mess up tomorrow, don't mess up now".

- Harry James Benson, CBE.






Similar Topics Collapse


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users