puckbags 863 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 First off, re-read my posting. Second it is like Fehr said an excellent *starting point* but some tweaks need to be made. I always thought even 7 years till UFA is too high, so no way the players should agree to 8. Also I for gods sake don't care what other leagues are doing. If you have to ask why such a low salary cap is bad I don't know what to tell you... I want to see superteams so the higher the better Sent from my BlackBerry Of course he said that..that's bargaining 101. He's not going to say " this is the greatest deal ever " because if he says that then if something hits a snag he will have no bargaining power. I think Fehr probably s*** his pants today when they came at them with that but he still has to keep his poker face on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chances14 227 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Yay a start point and a good one at that. I am sure Fehr will offer an untouched UFA; ELC, status and a higher contract cap 5 years is just ridiculous. why is that ridiculous? the nba has a 5 year max for players signing with their returning teams and 4 year max if they sign with another team during free agency 1 F.Michael reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 At last the league comes forward with a reasonable starting point for negotiations. I still don't think we're going to get an 82-game season, but I am hopeful that we will get more than half a season now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frankgrimes 1,836 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 why is that ridiculous? the nba has a 5 year max for players signing with their returning teams and 4 year max if they sign with another team during free agency Taking away security from players is never a good thing! Couldn't care less about the NBA this is hockey we are talking here. Sent from my BlackBerry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hillbillywingsfan 792 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Taking away security from players is never a good thing! Couldn't care less about the NBA this is hockey we are talking here. Sent from my BlackBerry I'm not sure I understand you not wanting to talk about other leagues that are way more successful than the nhl and the reasons why they are. There are things that other leagues do that the nhl would be smart to adopt and some things that they need to stay clear of. there is nothing wrong with bringing those facts up. I hope that the 10+ yr contracts are a thing of the past. 2 drwscc and F.Michael reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
number9 3,297 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 I'm not sure I understand you not wanting to talk about other leagues that are way more successful than the nhl and the reasons why they are. There are things that other leagues do that the nhl would be smart to adopt and some things that they need to stay clear of. there is nothing wrong with bringing those facts up. I hope that the 10+ yr contracts are a thing of the past. Other sports are semi-comparable....but when it comes down to it this is a different league, different sport, different problems Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 On the other side of the coin.... Why didn't Uncle Fehr make the first major concession? I guess Uncle Gary cared a little bit more than Fehr. Especially after Fehr was given the last proposal and he chose not to negotiate by saying it wasn't a game of "ping-pong". Make the first "major concession". See "Lockout #2, in a series of three 9so far)". Why did Uncle Gary enforce the lockout? Why did Uncle Gary "lowball" in the first offer? A lot of people have put their blinders on and focused on "50-50" aspect of the offer and that's a big mistake. I totally agree with the observations made by Mr. MacKenzie and Mr. Dreger on TSN that there is a lot buried in this proposal and that, if they're not careful and make a counter-proposal, the players are going to get screwed... again. As of this moment in time, Uncle Gary has underestimated his bargaining opponent. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 This is still such an encouraging sign, even if it's a PR play. Talks have continued, an they just moved the dial in the first significant way. Didn't even talk until Dec in the 04 lockout. Sent on iPhone using Tapatalk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 "Please settle...NOW!!! I've heard a rumour that NBC Sports plans to use me for the Professional Bull Riders coverage". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 The more details I see coming out of the league's proposal yesterday, the more pessimistic I'm getting about a potential deal in the short term. I guess it will depend on how reasonable the league will be in negotiating off that offer and how reasonable the NHLPA will be in their requests. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Here's a decent summary of the proposal. The good news is that the defnition of HRR seems to be unchanged from the last CBA. http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19780/breaking-down-the-leagues-proposal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Akward translation, but this seems to suggest players that went to Europe to play have been asked not to play for those clubs until at least October 23rd. Not sure how credible this is seeing as I haven't seen it pop up anywhere in North American news, but I'll look around http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=cs&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhokej.idnes.cz%2Fhracska-asociace-doporucila-hokejistum-nhl-aby-nikde-nehrali-p5g-%2Fhokej.aspx%3Fc%3DA121017_105034_hokej_cig Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 LeBrun's reporting that the League and the PA will have meetings again tomorrow in Toronto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pskov Wings Fan 71 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 The more details I see coming out of the league's proposal yesterday, the more pessimistic I'm getting about a potential deal in the short term. I guess it will depend on how reasonable the league will be in negotiating off that offer and how reasonable the NHLPA will be in their requests. Which specific part do you think would be an issue for players? I do not see anything, which would make the offer unacceptable. Players might ask for contract limit to be longer than 5 years. Maybe a gradual move from 57% to 50%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 One interesting aspect that's relevant to the Wings: All existing NHL contracts which go longer than five years will be subject to new cap calculations, specifically those deals will count against a team's cap regardless of whether the player is still playing or not. My belief here is that this is the NHL's attempt at correcting the so-called "cheat deals" or back-diving deals -- like those of Marian Hossa or Roberto Luongo -- which carry bogus salaries at the end of deals to lower the cap hit. That would effect Z and Franzen's contract if they don't play out the full length. Their contracts aren't as ridiculous as Luongo's, but they're a stretch. I'm also surprised by this a bit: Embracing an idea first proposed by Maple Leafs GM Brian Burke years ago, the league’s offer included the ability to retain salary in trades. Under the expired CBA, teams could not trade or keep parts of a player’s salary in a trade. This new provision would obviously facilitate trades in a cap market that saw deals minimized, especially in the first half of the season. It seems like being able to bail out of bad contracts like that will help player movement, but also give GM's an out when they grossly overpay players. And I thought that's what we're trying to clamp down on here. http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/8513156/nhl-league-proposal-bold-step-save-season Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jedi 1,865 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Doesn't sound like the PA is too thrilled with the NHL's offer. Bob McKenzie/TSN has a story up with snippets of Fehr's letter to the PA that breaks down the proposal... The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following: - "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?" - "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules." On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal... Read the whole story for more. Offers some interesting insights into the PA's mindset. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 If the 5 year limit goes through, top UFA prices will skyrocket. ~$12M cap hits for Getzlaf/Perry. That would probably drive up the price of 2nd-tier players too. Imagine $6-7M for Flip. On the other side, prices for UFAs in their 30s could come down to compensate, particularly those coming off down seasons, and prices for the majority of younger players should stay lower for a bit longer. Both factors could be good for the Wings, considering all our promising (but not "star") prospects and typical willingness to rely on aging vets. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toby91_ca 620 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Which specific part do you think would be an issue for players? I do not see anything, which would make the offer unacceptable. Players might ask for contract limit to be longer than 5 years. Maybe a gradual move from 57% to 50%. There are tons of issues, but two big ones: - players will take a big hit in current salaries. The NHL says they aren't asking for a rollback, but at 50% right away, that's a 12.3% rollback. While current year salaries will remain intact, the function to allow that would be the players taking less money in later years. So, if a player is currently signed to $5M for the next 5 years, they might get their $5M this year, but maybe only $3M in each of the following 4 years. - from the looks of it, the definition of HRR is still cloudy, the league says it's unchanged, but the PA is not so sure and will look to clarify that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rick D 350 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570 Here is the whole proposal... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 ... It seems like being able to bail out of bad contracts like that will help player movement, but also give GM's an out when they grossly overpay players. And I thought that's what we're trying to clamp down on here. http://espn.go.com/n...tep-save-season They're trying to limit circumvention, so as long as someone is eating the cap hit, I'd say it's fine. I'd assume the cap hit would go with the player, even though the trading team still pays some of the salary. This would allow rich teams to dump bad cap hits, and allow poor teams to reach the floor without actually paying the salaries. Not quite as good as trading cap space or cash, but it does add a tool to help address the revenue disparity. It's probably my favorite part of the owner's proposal (assuming it would work the way I think, and owners would actually use it wisely). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 Make the first "major concession". See "Lockout #2, in a series of three 9so far)". Why did Uncle Gary enforce the lockout? Why did Uncle Gary "lowball" in the first offer? Ah, so two wrongs make a right? Got it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightfall 871 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 As I expected, this deal wasn't going to get done with this proposal. I guess the nhlpa is going to bargain tomorrow. Wish there was more of a sense of urgency out of them. 1 hillbillywingsfan reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 As I expected, this deal wasn't going to get done with this proposal. I guess the nhlpa is going to bargain tomorrow. Wish there was more of a sense of urgency out of them. Of course it wasn't going to get done with this proposal. This proposal should have been made last season so both sides could have started negotiating with realistic starting positions and been able to go through the back and forth process. It will take weeks of back and forth, especially with such complicated legal proposals. Just to type up a proposal probly takes all day. 2 Rick D and amato reacted to this Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StormJH1 231 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) The more I think about it, this isn't just a PR move by the league, it's a GREAT PR move by the NHL. It had been all over the media for weeks that the assumption was the two sides would eventually meet at "50/50". In one fell swoop, the NHL has offered what fans perceive to be the ending point, PLUS a full 82-game season. For the players to flat reject that now would make it appear that they're the ones who wrecked our chance at a full season. There's just a few problems with that proposal, though: It ISN'T 50/50. The definition of "Hockey Related Revenues" (HRR) is significant, as it apparently deducts costs from gross revenues before dividing it up to the players. This is not analogous to a 50% share in other sports, and is probably more like 45%. Given Donald Fehr's stance from the beginning, which is that the league was booming and the owners got virtually everything they wanted in '05, what does this offer GIVE the players? If it lowers contracts to 5 years and drops the salary cap over $10 million, what are they getting in return? Still, having the pressure on the NHLPA is a good thing if you're a fan that only cares about the players getting back to work. The NFL referee lockout was a good idea of how a dramatic shift in public opinion can create "sudden movement" in a negotiation that otherwise appears to be a stalemate. Edited October 17, 2012 by StormJH1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Echolalia 2,961 Report post Posted October 17, 2012 For anyone who has read the latest proposal: Can someone explain this "make Whole" policy? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
