• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

uk_redwing

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

OMFG! NO WAY! THAT LITTLE MIDGET DWARF UNCLE GARY CAN BURN IN HELL!!!!

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the part about bettman not being allowed to offer up anymore conecessions is true, that kind of blows the whole "it's all bettman's fault" theory out of the water. it would mean that the owners are actually calling the shots unlike what some people around here want to believe.

It certainly is interesting to consider, but I'm not sure I buy it, to be honest. Bettman only needs 8 votes in his favor to ensure he isn't overruled, for the "Bettman's fault" theory to not be true, he would need 23 owners against him to force his hand. And since we already know that Jacobs (Boston), Leipold (Minnesota), Edwards (Calgary) and Leonsis (Washington) are solidly in Bettman's camp as well as the League-Owned Coyotes, that leaves Bettman only needing 3 votes to ensure that he gets the final say on the League's stance.

My best guess? Bettman has more than 8 owners in his court, but their support very well could be conditional on him doing everything he can to completely break the PA, and force them into only a deal of the League's offering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Toronto Star:

With pressure mounting to get a season-saving deal done, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman secretly allowed owners and general managers to be in contact with players for a 48-hour period last week.

Owners and GMs were afforded a chance to promote Bettman’s proposal of a

50-50 division of hockey related revenue. The window for conversations ended Friday.

The report initially came from

Quebec-based TVA.

“Propaganda,” one NHL unidentified player told TVA Sports.

“Players were calling to ask about the offer,” NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly told the Star in an email. “We let clubs answer their questions. . . . We did authorize club executives to respond substantively to player inquiries.”

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96   
Guest Johnz96

This and the proposals that each side has tabled that are touted as "50/50" are not 50/50 right out of the gate. Which is why there is fault on both sides.

What I was trying to say in your hypothetical proposal representing the NHL, you would pay contracts already signed but that is the purpose of the lockout in the first place and the ultimate goal for the NHL. To renege on contracts the owners signed and offered in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That confuses me. I wasn't aware it was a league-sanctioned gag order that the owners couldn't talk to the players.

I had assumed that was commonplace, especially after the League slapped Jimmy D with a $250k fine for speaking out. The League hired Bettman to be their mouthpiece and chief negotiator. If the Owners are spreading the message instead of Bettman, it undermines his position as League spokesman, and makes it less likely that everyone stays "on message".

Plus, if the owners and players were allowed to speak without League supervision/approval, then you could see the more moderate owners and players working together to oppose the official League stance. That is the LAST thing Bettman wants at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you suggest they go about getting to 50/50 right out of the gate AND honoring of all current contracts at the same time? (which you say you are in favor of)

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

What I was trying to say in your hypothetical proposal representing the NHL, you would pay contracts already signed but that is the purpose of the lockout in the first place and the ultimate goal for the NHL. To renege on contracts the owners signed and offered in the first place.

Yup, I get what you are asking. There are ways around that with the right deal in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

Yup, I get what you are asking. There are ways around that with the right deal in place.

Consider me a league financial expert.....what's your idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Consider me a league financial expert.....what's your idea?

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.

Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96   
Guest Johnz96

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.

Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me know when you have the league financial records. I have some ideas, but I have no idea if they would work or not in the current system without having someone who is a league financial expert. I could speculate, but I want to avoid that right now. Without a firm grasp on the financials, no one really knows if the ideas would work or not.

My thinking is, that if it was at all possible, then it would have happened by now.

I mean, wasn't that the entire point of the players union putting out the "3rd" proposal for an immediate 50/50 division, if the owners would honor all contracts? To show everyone that while technically possible, it would require the owners to take a hit themselves, which we know would never happen, and they proved would never happened by dismissing the offer, quite literally, immediately upon it being presented to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thinking is, that if it was at all possible, then it would have happened by now.

I mean, wasn't that the entire point of the players union putting out the "3rd" proposal for an immediate 50/50 division, if the owners would honor all contracts? To show everyone that while technically possible, it would require the owners to take a hit themselves, which we know would never happen, and they proved would never happened by dismissing the offer, quite literally, immediately upon it being presented to them.

Once again, the 50/50 split the union and league touted was not a true 50/50 split. You can read both proposals that have been posted here.

Maybe over time would be the best way to get to that split. I have no idea since I am not a league financial expert.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.

Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

Lengthen them out, meaning existing players have to play even longer before going to Free Agency? The PA will burn that to the ground faster than the Hindenburg. Oh the humanity...

Now, if you mean that a player on a 5 year contract gets 100 % of the contract over 7 years, but still becomes a Free Agent in 5 years, then I think the Owners would burn that down fas... well, you get the idea...

Also, there's no way the owners would pay the decrease in salaries up front. The whole idea of their side of the argument is to not have to pay the players what they're contractually owed. What makes you think the owners would agree to pay them what they're contractually owed when they took a grand total of 15 minutes to reject a proposal that would pay the players what they're contractually owed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

?

Precisely why I didn't post what I thought. The thought of making owners pay 7% of every contract up front and off the cap OR making the length longer to minimize the impact does not compute to many NHLPA fans. Hell, I don't know if it would work, but its an idea that only a league financial expert can answer if that can work or not.

I just wish at this stage that Fehr and Bettman were locked in a room and working on the next deal and hard as we are talking about it.

Lengthen them out, meaning existing players have to play even longer before going to Free Agency? The PA will burn that to the ground faster than the Hindenburg. Oh the humanity...

Now, if you mean that a player on a 5 year contract gets 100 % of the contract over 7 years, but still becomes a Free Agent in 5 years, then I think the Owners would burn that down fas... well, you get the idea...

I meant the latter, but that is an option that is on the table. May not be ideal, but I believe that the players are entitled to every cent of those contracts, and there is a way to make it happen. I don't think this will be in the final deal though. Easy for someone to ***** at the idea. Hard to come up with a solution that is a win/win.

Edited by Nightfall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe over time would be the best way to get to that split.

Yeah, that is the point I am getting at. You keep knocking the union proposal for the specific reason that it didn't immediately offer a 50/50 split out of the gate. I am saying, I don't think it is possible to go 50/50 out the gate and still honor existing contracts. It would have to ramp down to 50/50 over time. It seems you are starting to see that now... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is the point I am getting at. You keep knocking the union proposal for the specific reason that it didn't immediately offer a 50/50 split out of the gate. I am saying, I don't think it is possible to go 50/50 out the gate and still honor existing contracts. It would have to ramp down to 50/50 over time. It seems you are starting to see that now... ;)

The only thing I am seeing right now is red. Not the Red Wings, but the color red.

I am angry at the NHL and NHLPA for their lack of negotiating and their willingness to play games with the media instead of get into a room and get to work. I am angry that the fans have been taken for a ride by these two organizations.

I don't know what deal would work or what wouldn't. The point is that everything we are talking about in terms of getting to 50% through rollbacks or paying up front or paying out contracts over a longer term are all just "possible" endings. Without the sides talking, we wont' get to a deal at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.

Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

1) Paying out the existing contracts in full regardless of revenues and split doesn't make sense to me because that wouldn't be the case under the expired CBA anyway. Example, even if the split was 57/43 forever, existing contracts are never truly guaranteed. If 57% of revenues drop below total contracted salaries.....total contracted salaries do not get paid in full.

2) I think what you describe is a way to segregate existing contracts vs. newly signed contracts....which is fair enough, but the owners don't want to pay full existing contracts, so that doesn't satisfy their needs.

3) The cap number is meaningless. All the owners truly care about is the split (50/50). You can set the cap at $200 million per team and if every teams spends to the cap, a lot of escrow payments will go back to the owners to get down to 50/50. All the cap does is help keep teams competitive (i.e. you don't have one team paying way more than another team). If all teams pay down to the floor.....players would probably get additional payments beyond their contracted salaries to get up to the 50/50.

I think the only real solution here is to cushion the immediate blow to the players (gradually get down to the 50/50, but not right off the bat). Maybe they take a bit more than 50% off the start, but the quicker the revenues grow (owner's control that fate the most), the quicker you get to 50/50. Honestly, I think the solution is so simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good examples here of how they can get to a 50/50 split out of the gate while paying out existing contracts.

http://espn.go.com/b...ving-make-whole

The idea noted in the article doesnt' get to 50/50 immediately. Basically, it's saying, let's start at 50/50 and the amounts greater than 50% will be paid as well, but we won't include that in the 50/50 split calc. The owners would never agree to that. I like the mechanism, but perhaps too complicated to track existing and new contracts. Apart from that, I think they'd have to tweak how the 13% gets topped up (i.e. make it contingent on revenue growth and take it down a bit). Whatever you do, you aren't going to be at 50% right away unless revenues grow by 15% in year one.

Edit....the thing that really pisses me off is the fact that the owners proposal does nothing to fix their problem...all is does is grab some additional cash from the players to help now, but the systematic problem still exists. When revenues keep growing due to select teams and 50/50 splits end up costing other teams who's revenues are not growing at the same rate....what is the NHL going to do in the next CBA? Take the players down to 40%? All that is going to happen is that the league as a whole will make more and more money....all coming from the top teams, with the occasional correction for smaller teams by grabbing money from players. It really, really annoys me to no end. They either need to abandon their desire for parity and allow teams to spend less than a floor (easy to do and still get to 50/50 in the end) or have more revenue sharing.

Edited by toby91_ca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are good examples here of how they can get to a 50/50 split out of the gate while paying out existing contracts.

http://espn.go.com/b...ving-make-whole

Thats what I said. The only way to do it is for the owners to pay out of pocket, which they won't. Or to ramp down to 50/50 over a few years.

Edited by sleepwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea noted in the article doesnt' get to 50/50 immediately. Basically, it's saying, let's start at 50/50 and the amounts greater than 50% will be paid as well, but we won't include that in the 50/50 split calc. The owners would never agree to that. I like the mechanism, but perhaps too complicated to track existing and new contracts. Apart from that, I think they'd have to tweak how the 13% gets topped up (i.e. make it contingent on revenue growth and take it down a bit). Whatever you do, you aren't going to be at 50% right away unless revenues grow by 15% in year one.

Edit....the thing that really pisses me off is the fact that the owners proposal does nothing to fix their problem...all is does is grab some additional cash from the players to help now, but the systematic problem still exists. When revenues keep growing due to select teams and 50/50 splits end up costing other teams who's revenues are not growing at the same rate....what is the NHL going to do in the next CBA? Take the players down to 40%? All that is going to happen is that the league as a whole will make more and more money....all coming from the top teams, with the occasional correction for smaller teams by grabbing money from players. It really, really annoys me to no end. They either need to abandon their desire for parity and allow teams to spend less than a floor (easy to do and still get to 50/50 in the end) or have more revenue sharing.

If you read the article, you will see that there are options on the table to get to 50% in year one. I like Fehr's option in his proposal.

As for what happens next year, I can tell you that the NHL will typically follow the other sports. Just like the NBA and NFL splits in revenue, the NHL will stay right along those lines. I think that it is off the mark to expect the players to take a pay cut to 40% No player would bow to that. If you look at the NBA for instance, the players had a similar deal as the NHL players had. 57% was the number in the NBA. The NFL has always been around 50/50, with the negotiations giving or taking about 1%. I doubt it goes down for the NHL unless the NBA and NFL decide to become more draconian in their negotiations and greedy as a result.

Thats what I said. The only way to do it is for the owners to pay out of pocket, which they won't. Or to ramp down to 50/50 over a few years.

When it comes to concessions, the owners have more to give than the players. They want to see the 50/50 split right away? Then pay up the contracts you signed, its that simple. Now if the NHLPA is willing to give the owners a bone on current contracts, then the owners can concede earlier free agency as an exchange.

I think that we need less of the, "That won't work" attitude and more of a can do attitude in these negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Johnz96   
Guest Johnz96

You know we have crossed into the twilight zone when pure speculation by opinionated writers is being touted by the fans of the NHLPA as fact. I suppose the lack of information really does give way to drawing your own conclusions.

Carry on!

Haha, fair enough.

Take existing contracts and lengthen them out so the money is paid out over a longer number of years. Every penny is paid out, but in a longer term, with interest.

Make owners pay out of their own pockets or by the teams as a whole to pay the players up front for the decrease in salary. So if it goes from 57% to 50%, then the owners have to pay those salaries out and they don't count towards the cap.

Just a couple ideas that I am sure will be bitched at, shot down, or otherwise dismissed by the NHLPA fans here. I have others, but the point is that everything is negotiable and the right deal can be made.

That's a great idea, but you are still not understanding what I am saying and it's not that complicated (it's no wonder you are so confused about this lockout mess).

The owners don't want to pay those salaries that's wha we are having a lockout, that is the purpose of the lockout, the raison d'etre if you will.

Your proposals are exactly what the players want, are what most of us who are against Bettman, the NHL and their lockout would like to happen

And nobody ever said that managememnt weren't allowed to speak to players regarding the lockout, they are forbidden to speak to the media (us, where the money comes from) regarding league matters

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


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