2458 replies to this topic

[kipwinger]

NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).

I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.

The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.

I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong.

"Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.
After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.
The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"

[haroldsnepsts]

No, in their counter offer the players wanted 25% variance. Here's an article that explains the player's counter proposal, they talk about variance in the paragraph right above the picture of Fehr and Crosby...

http://aol.sportingn...r-hockey-strike

Ah.

So it sounds more and more that the league really did make a take it or leave it offer. Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted. That's unrealistic.

Keep talking and adjusting everything. Meet somewhere between 5% and 25%. Or reduce the make whole in exchange for longer contract length. Or adjust CBA length.

I don't get why both variance AND term is worth blowing up the deal to ownership. Either a short term or a low variance (or some combination) will eliminate back diving. I'd be inclined to give them a little longer term for some job security for the stars, which as Richards points out, is good for the franchises when you know you'll have a star player for more years.

5% variance is extremely tight. I assumed (wrongly) that number was just a starting point and they'd move off of it. 10% would still eliminate backdiving pretty significantly, especially if you tied it to a 7 to 10 year term.

[frankgrimes]

I'm sick and tired of this false argument. The players favor supporting struggling teams too. Your assertion that revenue sharing is only favored by the league and Bettman is demonstrably false. Here's a quote from the NHLPA's website. I've gone ahead and bolded the parts that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what you said is either intentionally misleading or unintentionally misguided. Either way, you're dead f'ing wrong.

"Meaningful revenue sharing is an essential component of any successful league. It is not a distraction; it is the heart of the issue.
After seven straight seasons of record revenue, it’s clear that if the NHL has a problem, it is not a revenue issue, but rather a revenue disparity issue. The owners’ revenue sharing proposal does increase to revenue sharing somewhat, but every dollar of revenue sharing is paid for by player salary reductions; the higher income clubs contribute nothing on their own.
The Players’ propose that they partner with the high-income teams to provide targeted funding for the distressed teams and owners. But the players won’t and shouldn’t have to do this alone. The higher income teams need to share far more with the lower revenue teams. The Players will do their part; will the owners?"

If this league would have an open market, this problem would have been non existent. I don't want the game to "grow" I want it to be highly competitive, with HOCKEY franchises and no some stupid experiments.

The NHL is a stubborn regime run by idiots, who think they just can lockout the players every 5 years and get their freaking will well this time the NHLPA will go into decertification before bending over.

Just blow it up and start from scratch, the league does deserve to lose revenue in a big way.

[kipwinger]

Ah.

So it sounds more and more that the league really did make a take it or leave it offer. Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted. That's unrealistic.

Keep talking and adjusting everything. Meet somewhere between 5% and 25%. Or reduce the make whole in exchange for longer contract length. Or adjust CBA length.

I don't get why both variance AND term is worth blowing up the deal to ownership. Either a short term or a low variance (or some combination) will eliminate back diving. I'd be inclined to give them a little longer term for some job security for the stars, which as Richards points out, is good for the franchises when you know you'll have a star player for more years.

5% variance is extremely tight. I assumed (wrongly) that number was just a starting point and they'd move off of it. 10% would still eliminate backdiving pretty significantly, especially if you tied it to a 7 to 10 year term.

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.

If this league would have an open market, this problem would have been non existent. I don't want the game to "grow" I want it to be highly competitive, with HOCKEY franchises and no some stupid experiments.

The NHL is a stubborn regime run by idiots, who think they just can lockout the players every 5 years and get their freaking will well this time the NHLPA will go into decertification before bending over.

Just blow it up and start from scratch, the league does deserve to lose revenue in a big way.

The point of revenue sharing IS to make the league more competitive, which is why Phoenix and New Jersey (both teams that lose money) were in the conference finals last year. The players AND the league want revenue sharing for the same reason you say you do...because it makes more teams more competitive. Anything else?

[frankgrimes]

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.



The point of revenue sharing IS to make the league more competitive, which is why Phoenix and New Jersey (both teams that lose money) were in the conference finals last year. The players AND the league want revenue sharing for the same reason you say you do...because it makes more teams more competitive. Anything else?

No the point is to force parity. We have the most competitive in all of sports why shouldn't he be allowed to spend 80 m on player salaries and ice a great team every year? Just because some questionable teams can't and wont even exist without RS? Too bad then they shouldn't have an NHL team.

Liked the pre 2005 era much better...

[chances14]

NO T in theory also in the real hockey world, if an owner can't or wont offer such a contract too bad but it is on his own terms. I am freaking sick and tired of hearing Mr. ANTI hockey and his hardline ******* trying to support franchises that shouldn't even have an NHL team, while teams who are providing more revenue are left out (I.E QUEBEC, Hamilton).

I now want the players to go nuclear and into decertification, they know some franchises won't survive an open market too bad the stubborn hardliners couldn't see that.

The PA provided a fair proposal the NHL didn't even bother reading it so to hell with this league.

in the first stages of the lockout, revenue sharing was actually a sticking point, with the players wanting more revenue sharing and the owners being against substantial revenue sharing. the reason for that is the players do not want to see any teams fold. less teams = less jobs for the union. players are just as guilty of wanting these small market teams to succeed as the owners.

it seems like these owners are in a no win situation. people get mad when owners don't spend money to make their teams better and only care about the bottom line, but then people turn around and get mad that owners are spending money that they can't afford to make their teams better.

Edited by chances14, 07 December 2012 - 03:57 PM.

[kipwinger]

No the point is to force parity. We have the most competitive in all of sports why shouldn't he be allowed to spend 80 m on player salaries and ice a great team every year? Just because some questionable teams can't and wont even exist without RS? Too bad then they shouldn't have an NHL team.

Liked the pre 2005 era much better...

Because that would make the league less, and not more, competitive? I'm not sure we're seeing eye to eye on the definition of competitive. More teams, all with a reasonable chance of winning in any given year, is competitive. Less teams, dominated by those that spend the most, is not competitive. You apparently favor having fewer teams, with success contingent on who can buy the most free agents, which if fine. But don't sit here and preach about how you want more competition.

Also, I'm going to reiterate again, the players want revenue sharing too. So stop making it seem like revenue sharing is some awful sin perpetrated by Bettman and the league. Players want more teams, because more teams mean more jobs, and more money. As a matter of fact, the owners want more teams, the players want more teams, and the fans in places like Dallas, Nashville, Phoenix, and Carolina want more teams. The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.

Edited by kipwinger, 07 December 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[RedWingsDad]

The only people that want teams to fold are people like you...an extreme minority.

I want teams to fold that have a business model only sustainable with the help of revenue sharing. I don't think those holding this position are an extreme minority.

[SouthernHockeyHoney]

On the subject of decertification. Interesting read, especially the part about the laws in Canada (where the NHLPA is based) and how they differ from US law.

http://aol.sportingn...ike-brown-v-nfl

[kipwinger]

I want teams to fold that have a business model only sustainable with the help of revenue sharing. I don't think those holding this position are an extreme minority.

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

[haroldsnepsts]

I agree with you that they could easily make due with 10% variance, however I think it's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that "Their make whole concessions were contingent on getting every contracting issue they wanted". They didn't get everything they wanted, they already conceded (without caveats) on arbitration, entry level contracts, and age requirements for free agency.

I meant specifically their final proposal. That it was essentially take it or leave it.

Bob McKenzie is breaking down some interesting things about the 5 year contract limit on his twitter account. Here's my general summary of his thoughts:

According to him and capgeek, about 89 players have contracts greater than 5 years. And about half of those are on 6 or 7 year deals signed as free agents by their club, which would still be allowable under the new CBA.

So if all that is true and we're talking about 40 or 50 players that would potentially be affected, why does either side care so much?

As he points out you could use the math to argue for either side, but either way it's certainly not an issue that should have blown up the whole negotiations.

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

I don't think that's true at all. I'm betting the wealthy franchises don't. Someone had posted a video clip of Keenan talking about an incident in 2005 with Ilitch pointing a finger at a fellow owner and wondering why he has to give him money because that guy doesn't know how to run a franchise.

If all the owners were in favor of it, it wouldn't have taken so long and been such a concession for them to increase it closer to what the NHLPA had offered in their proposal.

From an owner's perspective, it's going to be better to reduce costs by reducing players salary than having to give up part of your revenue to support a struggling franchise. So they're always going to argue cost certainty before revenue sharing.

[RedWingsDad]

Like I said, all the owners favor revenue sharing, the NHLPA favors revenue sharing, and all the fans of teams who lose money (the majority of teams and fans) probably favor revenue sharing. So I'm not really sure who exactly does favor it, aside from fans in cities making money. Even then I don't know why they care, considering it's not their money, and their own players and owners organizations support the system.

I generally oppose revenue sharing on the premise that it punishes success, and rewards failure... which is never a winning combination. I re-call the video of an insider talking about a board of governors meeting where Mike Illitch called out another owner or owners for not being able to properly run a business and therefore forcing him to subsidize their failure. I wonder how much he really supports revenue sharing...

[rrasco]

The offer the PA tabled yesterday did not have a 25% variance on contact terms. They proposed that the lowest year value could not be less than 25% of the highest. If player X makes $10M this year on a 10 year contract, the lowest amount of any of those 10 years could be is $2.5M.

I wasn't a big fan of this.

Edited by rrasco, 07 December 2012 - 04:59 PM.

[kipwinger]

I meant specifically their final proposal. That it was essentially take it or leave it.

Bob McKenzie is breaking down some interesting things about the 5 year contract limit on his twitter account. Here's my general summary of his thoughts:

According to him and capgeek, about 89 players have contracts greater than 5 years. And about half of those are on 6 or 7 year deals signed as free agents by their club, which would still be allowable under the new CBA.

So if all that is true and we're talking about 40 or 50 players that would potentially be affected, why does either side care so much?

As he points out you could use the math to argue for either side, but either way it's certainly not an issue that should have blown up the whole negotiations.


I don't think that's true at all. I'm betting the wealthy franchises don't. Someone had posted a video clip of Keenan talking about an incident in 2005 with Ilitch pointing a finger at a fellow owner and wondering why he has to give him money because that guy doesn't know how to run a franchise.

If all the owners were in favor of it, it wouldn't have taken so long and been such a concession for them to increase it closer to what the NHLPA had offered in their proposal.

From an owner's perspective, it's going to be better to reduce costs by reducing players salary than having to give up part of your revenue to support a struggling franchise. So they're always going to argue cost certainty before revenue sharing.

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

[haroldsnepsts]

I see what you mean, I don't think the issue is that it's only 50 players, but rather (as Bettman stated in his presser yesterday) that the tend is going toward longer contracts. As he said, prior to this last cba, only one player had a contract of that length. I think they're trying to preempt the problem. But you're right, it doesn't affect that many people.

McKenize tweeted a link to some guy who made an interesting argument. One he wasn't even necessarily completely sold on, but is an interesting point.

The basic idea is that even though the 5 year contract length only involves a handful of players, it indirectly affects a lot of other players. The longer contracts are really only going to be with star players. And because of the cap and contract restrictions, it's more difficult for franchises to compete for star players. One way they can compete is by extending longer contracts. That means more job security for the player, but it also means a lower cap hit because of the longer term. That frees up more cap space for the lower line players.

The thinking (as I understand it) is if there's 5% variance and 5 year contracts, contracts could just get maxed out for the star players and eat up a greater portion of the cap, thereby depressing salaries for the lower line players because there's less cap space left to split among several players.

It's an interesting idea. And if the logic holds up is a counterargument to why the contracting issues affect more than just those 40 or 90 players.

So I don't know what to think about it anymore. I just want hockey.

[stevie for president]

McKenize tweeted a link to some guy who made an interesting argument. One he wasn't even necessarily completely sold on, but is an interesting point.

The basic idea is that even though the 5 year contract length only involves a handful of players, it indirectly affects a lot of other players. The longer contracts are really only going to be with star players. And because of the cap and contract restrictions, it's more difficult for franchises to compete for star players. One way they can compete is by extending longer contracts. That means more job security for the player, but it also means a lower cap hit because of the longer term. That frees up more cap space for the lower line players.

The thinking (as I understand it) is if there's 5% variance and 5 year contracts, contracts could just get maxed out for the star players and eat up a greater portion of the cap, thereby depressing salaries for the lower line players because there's less cap space left to split among several players.

It's an interesting idea. And if the logic holds up is a counterargument to why the contracting issues affect more than just those 40 or 90 players.

So I don't know what to think about it anymore. I just want hockey.

That reasoning makes a couple assumptions though. Would the same amount of players be getting these maxed out star contracts? I don't see Jordan Staal getting the money and term Carolina gave him under these proposed conditions. Also, this is assuming these star players stay star players and get more than one max contract. Gomez is taking $7.5mil out of Montreal's cap for 2 seasons when he's not worth it. Same goes for Dipietro, Brian Campbell, and a few other players.

But, if the star players do get a disproportionate amount of cap space, I still don't see the issue. I understand how important role players are, and I know Detroit in particular loves guys like Helm, McCarty, and Maltby, but for the most part these types of players don't sell merchandise or tickets. I have no statistics to back this up, but I'd guess the Crosby's and Ovechkin's of the world bring in a large percent of the revenue and so they should make a large percent of the salary cap.

[haroldsnepsts]

That reasoning makes a couple assumptions though. Would the same amount of players be getting these maxed out star contracts? I don't see Jordan Staal getting the money and term Carolina gave him under these proposed conditions. Also, this is assuming these star players stay star players and get more than one max contract. Gomez is taking $7.5mil out of Montreal's cap for 2 seasons when he's not worth it. Same goes for Dipietro, Brian Campbell, and a few other players.

But, if the star players do get a disproportionate amount of cap space, I still don't see the issue. I understand how important role players are, and I know Detroit in particular loves guys like Helm, McCarty, and Maltby, but for the most part these types of players don't sell merchandise or tickets. I have no statistics to back this up, but I'd guess the Crosby's and Ovechkin's of the world bring in a large percent of the revenue and so they should make a large percent of the salary cap.

I don't disagree.

But if the star players could potentially end up with a disproportionate amount of cap space, then I could see why more players than just that top 90 would care about the contract length. That's all I was saying. Not arguing the rightness or wrongness of that allocation.

[haroldsnepsts]

very interesting

adater ‏@adater
From deep inside players side: "We were ready to play again. But Don came in (Wed.) and told us we could get more and to hold out

That depth player was not on the Avalanche, FYI. That's all I have on this

Fehr did not hold a player-wide conference call in saying that, important to note. Came from top down, trickle-down

Bottom line here: Players say they are unified, but not what I'm hearing from this depth player. They'll deny that publicly, but..

.privately, they are feeling powerless as the Ryan Millers and Brad Richards of the world pretend this is a sacrifice for them

This depth player is wicked smart though. May put his name to comments soon. Sorry for anonymous tilt to this. not my style

FWIW, @dater has since backtracked on all these comments and apologized.

I know he apparently writes for the Denver Post and SI at times, but I don't really think he's a consistent and credible source (that's my opinion as a hockey fan, not a mod), especially when compared to guys like McKenzie, Dreger and Lebrun.

[vladdy16]

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
NHL Deputy Commish Bill Daly told me NHLPA's claims that owners told them getting Don Fehr back in room could be a "deal-breaker" are untrue
Retweeted by Nick CotsonikaExpand

• Reply
• Retweet
• Favorite
• More

LeBrunn feels a deal will be done per this article.

[Barrie]

I generally oppose revenue sharing on the premise that it punishes success, and rewards failure... which is never a winning combination. I re-call the video of an insider talking about a board of governors meeting where Mike Illitch called out another owner or owners for not being able to properly run a business and therefore forcing him to subsidize their failure. I wonder how much he really supports revenue sharing...

See this is what I don't understand about the owners, they want a Salary Cap and a Floor, but the big teams don't want to share revenues. If they want a Salary Cap and Floor, they HAVE to revenue share. If the rich teams don't want to revenue share, then get rid of the Cap and Floor. It isn't that difficult to understand.

These issues are between the owners, and doesn't have anything to do with the players. We're going to miss another season of hockey because the owners can't agree with themselves. It's not up to the players to save Phoenix, Florida, Columbus, Nashville, etc. from bankruptcy. Plus a 7% decerease in the player's share won't begin to cover the tens of Millions of $ teams are losing. Unless the owners can get their crap together, we'll have another lockout in 7 years.

If you ask me, the compromise is a Luxury Tax.