• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

2,459 posts in this topic

It is easy.

Go with 50/50. Honor current contracts. But use reduced value of old CBA contracts to calculate salary cap. All new contracts will use full value for cap calculations.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only question is...do the players realize that they are already giving up percentages of their salary with each missed paycheck during this lockout?

They are telling everyone each time they want their contract to be honored 100%...but in the meantime they already lost 1 of 12 paychecks this year...essentialy giving up 8% of their salary.

They also have to realize that when the next batch of games is canceled...the chances are only getting smaller that the owners are willing to honor their contracts in full, whatever construction they want to use.

I hope that the PA shares their proposals with the media, so I can have a look for myself how they want to get to 50/50 in the first year without giving up salary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allan Walsh@walsha

If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.

Without having read this entire thread, has any started the discussion about how Mr.Ilitch may be one of the hurdles that this negotiation is facing? Seems logical since a couple of key points in the negotiations are cap circumvention (which he did) and revenue sharing with smaller clubs (which he does a lot).

Maybe he's lobbying hard to save money so he can fully fund a new arena! LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without having read this entire thread, has any started the discussion about how Mr.Ilitch may be one of the hurdles that this negotiation is facing? Seems logical since a couple of key points in the negotiations are cap circumvention (which he did) and revenue sharing with smaller clubs (which he does a lot).

Maybe he's lobbying hard to save money so he can fully fund a new arena! LOL

Hell, if anything, I bet Illitch would be voting FOR the proposal, not against. You seem to forget that Illitch is a responsible owner. If anything, the owners voting against the CBA would be the irresponsible ones.

One thing we do know is that 8 owners are against these agreements. When you have 20 irresponsible owners, its not hard to find 8 of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, if anything, I bet Illitch would be voting FOR the proposal, not against. You seem to forget that Illitch is a responsible owner. If anything, the owners voting against the CBA would be the irresponsible ones.

One thing we do know is that 8 owners are against these agreements. When you have 20 irresponsible owners, its not hard to find 8 of them.

Er...

Henrik Zetterberg - 12 yr/$73,000,000 until 2020

Johan Franzen - 11 yr/$43,500,000 until 2019

Niklas Kronwall - 7 yr/$33,250,000 until 2018

Every one of those contracts, under the NHL proposed CBA, would be hit for cap circumvention. Here's a good article:

NHL lockout: League proposal would punish teams that circumvent cap with long-term contracts

Doesn't seem like Mr. Ilitch would be too eager to back Bettman on this.

Edited by Esquire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er...

Henrik Zetterberg - 12 yr/$73,000,000 until 2020

Johan Franzen - 11 yr/$43,500,000 until 2019

Niklas Kronwall - 7 yr/$33,250,000 until 2018

Every one of those contracts, under the NHL proposed CBA, would be hit for cap circumvention. Here's a good article:

NHL lockout: League proposal would punish teams that circumvent cap with long-term contracts

Doesn't seem like Mr. Ilitch would be too eager to back Bettman on this.

Yet, through the contracts, Illitch would still be making a profit. You think he is making more or less of a profit now that NHL games aren't being played? The only teams that want the lockout at this stage are the ones that are losing money.

You do bring up a good point though, and the only way we are going to know the answer is by talking to Mr. Illitch on these issues. Until then, we are left to guess and speculate.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/19852/cba-talks-not-as-dire-as-they-look

Lets hope this is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of clever marketing by a Canadian Junior "A" hockey team:

Inspired by the NHL and the NHLPA's dispute over revenue sharing, the Surrey Eagles of the BCHL have decided to give its fans a good deal.

The term "50-50" has been thrown around quite a bit since the two sides began negotiations this summer. In memory of the 57/43 split from the previous CBA, the Eagles decided to change their raffle ratio accordingly.

Fans will be licking their chops at the increased pay out as the Eagles play host to the Vernon Vipers on Friday night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/n...-bickering-ways

Given that that proposal included a chance to play all 82 games and thus pay players a full salary -- whatever those salaries would have looked like under a new deal -- one might have expected the players to seize that and try to manipulate it and tweak it more to their liking.

You know, sort of draw a line from A to B.

Isn't that, after all, what negotiating is supposed to look like?

Multiple sources have told ESPN.com there was and is room within that owners' proposal to move, areas that could have and still could form the basis for negotiation and some sort of resolution.

Likewise, multiple sources have told ESPN.com that many players believed that owner proposal was a good starting point. It had its warts, of course, but it was a place from which to begin getting a deal done.

Instead of drawing that line from A to B, the players came in with proposals that appeared to be a further reworking of their earlier proposal -- or lines that went from D to E.

Within minutes of the meeting's rather abrupt end, there were claims that the sides were trying to mislead the public about what exactly the offers entailed.

Here is the telling point to this whole situation. I do agree with this assessment.

In this two-man drama, one character, let's call him Don, hands the other a sheaf of papers.

"Hey, read this, Gary, I think you'll like it. It's exactly what you need," the Don character says.

At the same time, though, the Gary character hands Don a similar sheaf of papers.

"Hey, read this, Don, this is really good."

The two continue to hand the papers back and forth throughout the play.

The problem is that both characters are blind.

Absurd? Sure. Just like these negotiations.

Because here's the rub. When all the rhetoric had cleared after Thursday's deflating exercise, what was left was the idea that maybe what's written on those two sheaves of paper isn't all that dissimilar.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the proposals are all that different. The NHLPA will get to 50/50, but in a phased in approach so they can collect on curent contracts. NHL wants 50/50 immediately.

Here's what I don't understand. It is much less important for the owners to get to 50/50 immediately as it is for the players to be able to phase it in. The players only have a finite life left to earn money. The owners are it for the very long run. Why don't the owners see this key issue and work something to protect the players that can only earn money for the next few years on average.

The issue may be just that though....why would the owners budge. They know the players have far more to lose by not playing, so they are getting advice to wait it out and the players will cave eventually. This is probably true, but the players are going to try and stand strong....admiral, but not smart. If they stand strong for too long, they will lose more money than they will ever be able to get back by whatever better deal they are able to make....I will guarantee that. They'll say it is worth if for the future generation of NHLers, but really, those guys will be on completely different CBAs. I guess you can look at it as setting a precedent, but not sure why the players would push so hard for that.

I agree with the players fighting for their rights, I just think they should think about it a little more smarter and what's in it for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only question is...do the players realize that they are already giving up percentages of their salary with each missed paycheck during this lockout?

They are telling everyone each time they want their contract to be honored 100%...but in the meantime they already lost 1 of 12 paychecks this year...essentialy giving up 8% of their salary.

They also have to realize that when the next batch of games is canceled...the chances are only getting smaller that the owners are willing to honor their contracts in full, whatever construction they want to use.

I hope that the PA shares their proposals with the media, so I can have a look for myself how they want to get to 50/50 in the first year without giving up salary...

If they can salvage a full 82 game schedule, there's likely no need to pro-rate any salary (aside from a drop in revenue). They may miss a check or two, but their remaining checks would just be that much higher.

Also, there is the principle to consider. The fight may be futile, but that's not a good reason to just submit. If you can leave the other guy a little bloody, it makes him less likely to want to fight again in the future.

Pskov Wings Fan and 55fan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without having read this entire thread, has any started the discussion about how Mr.Ilitch may be one of the hurdles that this negotiation is facing? Seems logical since a couple of key points in the negotiations are cap circumvention (which he did) and revenue sharing with smaller clubs (which he does a lot).

Maybe he's lobbying hard to save money so he can fully fund a new arena! LOL

Judging by the way he looked last night I dont think he is making many judgment calls on anything. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can salvage a full 82 game schedule, there's likely no need to pro-rate any salary (aside from a drop in revenue). They may miss a check or two, but their remaining checks would just be that much higher.

Also, there is the principle to consider. The fight may be futile, but that's not a good reason to just submit. If you can leave the other guy a little bloody, it makes him less likely to want to fight again in the future.

Well that is the problem...a 82 game schedule is not possible anymore after the PA's proposal.

Leaving your enemy a little bloody is fine, but not when that means you leave yourself in a bloody massacre...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is the problem...a 82 game schedule is not possible anymore after the PA's proposal.

Leaving your enemy a little bloody is fine, but not when that means you leave yourself in a bloody massacre...

Well, the league did say the full season could be played if started by November 2nd. TECHNICALLY there's still time, but I'm not holding my breath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the league did say the full season could be played if started by November 2nd. TECHNICALLY there's still time, but I'm not holding my breath...

True, but for my statement I already assumed a full season is out of the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the truly sad part of this (and the fans are guilty of it as well):

I've been moderately anti-NHL (and pro-NHLPA) for this whole thing, and despite the NHL's brilliantly evil PR tactic of placing an arbitrary negotiating deadline on the PLAYERS to acquiesce to the demands of the owners and end a lockout that the OWNERS created, I'm not losing sight of how this entire dispute started, and how ridiculous it is. Even if no deal gets done before 10/25, and there's no 82-game season. Most people assumed that was a foregone conclusion once we started losing preseason games anyway.

But while I still largely agree with the players, and view the lockout as unnecessary, I'm getting the sense from the NHLPA that "honoring current contracts" is an issue taking precedence over all. And that's terribly short-sighted. There are MANY other significant issues that severely compromised the fairness of the game and the safety of the players from 2005 to 2012, but the fans heard "82-game season" and "50/50" and suddenly all they care about is "Accept! Accept! Accept!".

There's some good elements in the NHL's proposal. I like the 5-year deals, and the third-party arbitrator for discipline decisions is probably a good thing. But the $12 million drop in salary cap will cripple some franchises, and the provisions retroactively punishing teams for signing mega-deals are barbaric and certain to cause horrible unintended consequences.

If you would've asked anyone in 2011: "What are the major issues affecting the long-term viability of this game?", here are a handful that come immediately to mind:

  • The safety of the players, caused in large part by the 04/05 rule changes and the increased speed of the game
  • Circumvention of the salary cap, including the new "Minnesota Wild" tactic of offering absurd signing bonuses to pay players nearly double what the CBA supposedly allows in one year
  • "Revenue sharing", or the complete lack thereof
  • Proper scheduling/realignment (such as the plan proposed last year and rejected by the NHLPA as a bargaining chip)

Notice that none of those were "what percentage of hockey related revenues go to the players and owners", though that issue is obviously tied to players salaries and the bottom line of the 30 teams. If you fixed those four things (and I think all four of them COULD be significantly improved), we'd have a much better game and a more viable business model going forward.

If you leave those issues untouched, rush into an agreement arguing primarily over grandfathered contracts, AND expand the league to 32 teams (as is heavily rumored today), we're going to be right back here again in 7 years or so. And in the meantime, we'll see even more BS like what Chicago and Philadelphia did to become Cup contenders, plus a whole assortment of NEW problems. I want hockey back worse than anyone, but if we're going to have a lockout that the NHL tells me we sorely need, then I want to see some evidence that there was a purpose to that lockout other than playing with revenue numbers. Say what you want about the 2004-05 Lockout, but we did emerge with a notably different (and, in many ways, better product) after that horrible experience.

Edited by StormJH1
Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is worth a read, I just stumbled upon it and it talks about Bettman possibly knowing he was going to turn down any offer the PA tabled before it even happened, and his whole 50/50 offer was just a pr move and really held no water.

http://www.rantsports.com/nhl/2012/10/18/nhl-rumor-did-nhl-plan-to-turn-down-nhlpas-offer-from-the-start/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah

This article is worth a read, I just stumbled upon it and it talks about Bettman possibly knowing he was going to turn down any offer the PA tabled before it even happened, and his whole 50/50 offer was just a pr move and really held no water.

http://www.rantsport...from-the-start/

Yeah all that sounds a few people on here got together and wrote an article about what they thought....no proof of anything. Both the NHLPA and the NHL are wanting the moon and the stars and no one is willing to give anywhere. I lean more towards the owners simply for the fact that no other business in the world has it's employees making more money than the owners. That wouldn't be very smart of the owners.

Edited by hillbillywingsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article is worth a read, I just stumbled upon it and it talks about Bettman possibly knowing he was going to turn down any offer the PA tabled before it even happened, and his whole 50/50 offer was just a pr move and really held no water.

http://www.rantsport...from-the-start/

None of these proposals that either side are throwing out there are going to be accepted. It won't be until both sides sit in a room longer than 60 minutes to NEGOTIATE a deal. There are going to be things in any proposal that the other side is not going to see eye to eye with. Which is why you have a negotiation and concessions by both sides working towards the goal of making a deal that works for both sides. I haven't seen that desire by either side. It seems that playing the PR card and complaining is more important than making a deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah

Yeah all that sounds a few people on here got together and wrote an article about what they thought....no proof of anything. Both the NHLPA and the NHL are wanting the moon and the stars and no one is willing to give anywhere. I lean more towards the owners simply for the fact that no other business in the world has it's employees making more money than the owners. That wouldn't be very smart of the owners.

The players getting 57% of HRR in no way means they make more money than the owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said this was written in stone, I said it was an interesting article talking about that possibly being the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ryan Lambert with Puck Daddy had a scathing review of the League's (read: Bettman's) negotiating tactics. I'd recommend giving it a read.

I've left out a good chunk of the middle, because you really should go and give the whole thing a read. But I've included the parts that I agree with most.

"(We're) going to get a deal done" - Gary Bettman to some dude, October 18, 2012, approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

"We were done in an hour today because there was really nothing there." - Gary Bettman to reporters, October 18, 2012, 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Funny, that.

Why, it's almost like the NHL had no intention whatsoever of accepting whatever offer the NHL Players' Association put forward yesterday, and that everything it has done to this point has come as part of bad-faith negotiations disguised as platitudes about how much the fans matter and how important it is for them to get a deal done.

...

But again, it was a PR move, and so the NHLPA fought back in the only way it knew how, offering three proposals with all different terms, but two of them with revenue shares based on growth, rather than just flatly dropping to 50-50 as the NHL's does. The other, which they had to know the league would never accept under any circumstance, sure doesn't make Bettman look good. Basically, it said, "We'll go to 50-50 today if you give us the money you owe us on the current deals up front."

Oof. That last part really has to sting Bettman. The players were ready to capitulate to your 50-50 demands right away, as long as the owners you represent in all this gave them the money contractually owed them.

Instead you pitched a fit to the media and considered it to be in a different language than what you were asking.

This is, in the NHL's mind, not acceptable. Reason enough for Bettman to storm out of a Toronto office building after talking about how deeply disappointing all this non-capitulation is — and to be sure, that's the only thing he's upset about — then get in a hired car and take the first flight back to New York City. Second time in a row that's happened. All the PR spin in the world can't change the fact that it's the league, not the PA, that refuses to negotiate.

"There was nothing to talk about," Gary? Sounds to me like that's only because the things to talk about weren't exactly what you wanted to hear. Next time try holding your breath until your face turns blue. That'll show everyone that you and aren't being inflexible at all.

Don Fehr, the players, and the fans (one of whom you directly lied to less than two hours before your press conference) will know you mean business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proper scheduling/realignment (such as the plan proposed last year and rejected by the NHLPA as a bargaining chip)

The players didn't reject it as a "bargaining chip" as you say. In case you forgot, the NHL proposed realignment was completely uneven and gave Eastern Conference teams an almost 10% advantage in making the playoffs versus the Western Conference teams. THAT is why the players rejected it, like anyone else would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The National Hockey League announced today the cancellation of the 2012-13 regular-season schedule through November 1. A total of 135 regular-season games were scheduled for Oct. 11 through Nov. 1.

The cancellation was necessary because of the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL Players' Association and the NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah

Yeah all that sounds a few people on here got together and wrote an article about what they thought....no proof of anything. Both the NHLPA and the NHL are wanting the moon and the stars and no one is willing to give anywhere. I lean more towards the owners simply for the fact that no other business in the world has it's employees making more money than the owners. That wouldn't be very smart of the owners.

I think you are wrong. Employee compensation is the main expense of great many businesses especially in the services area. Owner gets whatever is left after all expenses are covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players didn't reject it as a "bargaining chip" as you say. In case you forgot, the NHL proposed realignment was completely uneven and gave Eastern Conference teams an almost 10% advantage in making the playoffs versus the Western Conference teams. THAT is why the players rejected it, like anyone else would have.

Well that just sounds stupid... the concept of eastern and western conference wouldn't have existed under the new proposal. Also, what did they use to determine that 10% advantage, lol? Don't mean to derail the lockout conversation... but .. yeah... lol

Edited by RedWingsDad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.