Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

[Retired] Official Lockout Thread


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2458 replies to this topic

#921 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 09:51 PM

Union has never proposed 50/50 in the first year.


yes they did

Fehr said the first offer would hit 50-50 in three years (players received 57 percent of revenues in the recently expired CBA), the second would reach 50-50 by the fifth year and the third would hit 50-50 immediately, but only if owners honor all current contracts at 100 percent.


link

both sides have been guilty of masking offers to look better than it actually is for the other side.


It's just too bad that revenue growth will take a step back because of the lockout.. The longer it goes on, the less revenue growth we'll see in upcoming years.


that's the sad and ironic part about the lockout. the league and players are fighting for less money each day this lockout drags on for

Edited by chances14, 18 October 2012 - 10:21 PM.


#922 chances14

chances14

    The Magician

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:19 PM

nice little article by lebrun

here's the most notable parts

The NHL, to its credit, or more precisely NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly, came up with a creative mechanism in Tuesday’s offer that tried to address making the players "whole" in their current contracts.

Regardless of whose argument you buy on whether that mechanism flies or not, the bottom line is that the NHLPA doesn’t accept its current definition as any kind of solution.

But here’s the key: The NHL, a source told ESPN.com, reiterated to the NHLPA in Thursday’s meeting that it is willing to play ball on that concept, that it is willing to be more flexible in trying to find a solution to keep players "whole" on their contracts.

If that sounds like an invitation from the league to continue to try to find a way on that crucial point, it is. And NHLPA executive director Donald Fehr himself hinted at wanting more clarification on the matter and you can only deduce that will invite more dialogue.


imo it sounds like bettman was just pouting to the media today because fehr didn't take the offer as is.

#923 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,665 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:53 PM

@TSNBobMcKenzie: Personally, I'll tune out rhetoric and wait to see what next few days brings. Often a difference between public comments/private sentiment.

Yup, lets hope for the best. Thats all we can do.

I am disappointed with the NHL at this stage. It doesn't seem to me that both parties are that far off. I don't agree that the NHL should be able to cut current contracts. Pay the players every dime of the deals that the owners and players signed for in the past. At the same time, I am disappointed with both parties for only talking for an hour and then leaving. Get in there and hammer out a deal.

Edited by Nightfall, 18 October 2012 - 10:54 PM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#924 Barrie

Barrie

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,877 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 10:57 PM

One thing Fehr said really stood out to me, about how Bettman and Daley only take 10-15 minutes to shoot stuff down, and don't even talk to the other owners.

Obviously Bettman isn't speaking for all the owners, has put himself in a position (only needing 8 owners backing him) where he can do whatever he wants, and can't lose his job.

There's NO DOUBT Bettman's the problem!
Lets Go:
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons

#925 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 18 October 2012 - 11:23 PM

...that's the sad and ironic part about the lockout. the league and players are fighting for less money each day this lockout drags on for

I don't think that's certain. Considering growth after the last two lockouts, I wouldn't be too surprised to see revenues go either way.

#926 Yevgeniy

Yevgeniy

    Draftee

  • Member
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Bay Area

Posted 19 October 2012 - 02:35 AM

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

#927 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 04:40 AM

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...
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#928 Esquire

Esquire

    Fix up, Look sharp.

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,268 posts
  • Location:Whitby, ON

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:18 AM

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
Posted Image
Posted Image

#929 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,665 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 19 October 2012 - 06:53 AM

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.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#930 Esquire

Esquire

    Fix up, Look sharp.

  • HoF Booster
  • 1,268 posts
  • Location:Whitby, ON

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:05 AM

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, 19 October 2012 - 07:06 AM.

Posted Image
Posted Image

#931 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,665 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:23 AM

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/b...re-as-they-look

Lets hope this is right.
Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#932 cusimano_brothers

cusimano_brothers

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,428 posts
  • Location:Niagara Falls, ON

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:29 AM

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.


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

- Harry James Benson, CBE.


#933 Nightfall

Nightfall

    My goal is to deny yours!

  • Gold Booster
  • 3,665 posts
  • Location:Grand Rapids

Posted 19 October 2012 - 07:50 AM

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, 19 October 2012 - 07:53 AM.

Christopher Brian Dudek
My Domain

#934 toby91_ca

toby91_ca

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 8,413 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:16 AM

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.

#935 Buppy

Buppy

    1st Line All-Star

  • Silver Booster
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:21 AM

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.

#936 roboginger

roboginger

    Jr. Prospect

  • Member
  • 22 posts
  • Location:Redford

Posted 19 October 2012 - 08:29 AM

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. :(

#937 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:39 AM

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...
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#938 Jedi

Jedi

    Galmar Stone-Fist. Stormcloak. Wings Fan.

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 9,787 posts
  • Location:Dallas

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:51 AM

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...

2cwlto0.jpg

 


#939 RippedOnNitro

RippedOnNitro

    Rookie

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 111 posts

Posted 19 October 2012 - 10:57 AM

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.
First round series win: $0 () Second round series win: $0 () Third round series win: $0 () Fourth round series win: $0 () Goal difference: $0 (-3) Shutout difference: $0 (0) SHG difference: $0 (0) Extra points reg. season: $3 (102)

TOTAL COLLECTED: $0 TOTAL BONUS IF STANLEY CUP: $3

#940 StormJH1

StormJH1

    2nd Line Scorer

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

Posted 19 October 2012 - 11:33 AM

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, 19 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users