2458 replies to this topic

[Buppy]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409721

so did fehr misrepresent the nhl's position to the players or is the nhl simply backtracking? we'll probably never know.

I don't think it's either. I'd bet it's more that the PA just doesn't want to give "five", to borrow the league's analogy. Doesn't matter if the league is willing to consider alternate methods of getting what they want. It still boils down to the league wanting something the PA doesn't feel they should have to give.

Also, on things like the contracting rights, there really aren't any alternate possibilities. Either you push back UFA eligibility or you don't. 5 year max contract term or not, 5% salary variance restriction or not.

If we knew better what the league intended to accomplish with the restrictions, then we might be able to consider alternatives. Eliminating back-diving contracts is easy to understand, though it's debatable that it's enough of a problem to warrant taking away a player's right to long-term security and up-front payment. Changes to cap accounting might be an alternate method of preventing cap circumvention without taking much away from players. The rest of the contracting restrictions would seem to be aimed at reducing salary growth, but with player compensation tied directly to revenues that is impossible. It's hard to see any reasoning behind them other than "just because".

[Buppy]

http://www.startribu.../179740001.html

Some interesting insight to be gleaned regarding the league's growth estimations. Demonstrating for the second time their use of one growth standard on one hand, and a different, more favorable, estimate regarding their "make whole" provision.

Time and again they have said that the players' share "catches up" by year 3, so no make whole would be needed from that point on. Yet in their own charts evaluating the PA proposal, the players' share doesn't catch up until year 5, and their make whole falls around $500-600M+ short, or ~$250M short if you don't count year 1.

Also, using the player's current proposal (apparently a straight 1.75% yearly increase), the financial separation comes down almost entirely to lockout damage.

[RippedOnNitro]

http://www.startribu.../179740001.html

Some interesting insight to be gleaned regarding the league's growth estimations. Demonstrating for the second time their use of one growth standard on one hand, and a different, more favorable, estimate regarding their "make whole" provision.

Time and again they have said that the players' share "catches up" by year 3, so no make whole would be needed from that point on. Yet in their own charts evaluating the PA proposal, the players' share doesn't catch up until year 5, and their make whole falls around $500-600M+ short, or ~$250M short if you don't count year 1.

Also, using the player's current proposal (apparently a straight 1.75% yearly increase), the financial separation comes down almost entirely to lockout damage.

The article suggests the nhlpa demands 64-70% of the revenue in year 1. That can't be right, can it?

[uk_redwing]

I've learnt to live without this league now.

I watch some AHL games now and then, but otherwise I just find myself having no desire/pining for the NHL. It's like that year down the line when you break-up with someone amazing and think "meh, what was all the fuss about?"

Grand Rapids Griffins Friday/Saturday/Sunday triple headers are all I need.

[Buppy]

The article suggests the nhlpa demands 64-70% of the revenue in year 1. That can't be right, can it?

Not exactly. The PA is asking for a fixed dollar amount rather than a certain percentage. Depending on actual revenue, the percentage could be a wide range, though at least one previous proposal contained conditions such that it could not be more than 57% or less than 50%.

The article does seem to suggest that the PA wants the league to bear the losses from the missed games (I would be inclined to agree except the fight would likely be more than it's worth), though the comment from Fehr suggests the PA just wants to save those talks until after the basic foundation is settled.

[chances14]

It's hard to see any reasoning behind them other than "just because".

to me, i think the nhl believes that by artificially restricting market value of players, the poorer teams will be able to keep their star players for cheaper, thus diminishing the disparity between the rich and poor teams. they don't want to have another small market team go through what nashville did this summer with shea weber. they were essentially handcuffed into accepting a deal that they know they can't afford, but had to accept if they wanted to remain competitive and appealing to their fan base.

[Buppy]

to me, i think the nhl believes that by artificially restricting market value of players, the poorer teams will be able to keep their star players for cheaper, thus diminishing the disparity between the rich and poor teams. they don't want to have another small market team go through what nashville did this summer with shea weber. they were essentially handcuffed into accepting a deal that they know they can't afford, but had to accept if they wanted to remain competitive and appealing to their fan base.

That may be an argument against the front loaded deals, particularly those with large signing bonuses, but pushing UFA eligibility back a year does nothing in that respect, nor would changes to arbitration, nor ELC term. The link to revenue guarantees that a certain amount of money has to be spent.

Furthermore, a 5 year max contract and 5% variance isn't going to make someone like Weber any cheaper in the short term. He wouldn't have signed a 5 year deal for a sub-$8M cap hit. Likely would have been much closer to the $13.6M average he's getting for the first five years. Probably would raise the price for his later years as well.

[number9]

to me, i think the nhl believes that by artificially restricting market value of players, the poorer teams will be able to keep their star players for cheaper, thus diminishing the disparity between the rich and poor teams. they don't want to have another small market team go through what nashville did this summer with shea weber. they were essentially handcuffed into accepting a deal that they know they can't afford, but had to accept if they wanted to remain competitive and appealing to their fan base.

Holmgren,forcing hands since 2006. #Bizzaro-Holland

[frankgrimes]

Well there is no way the players are going to give up money and their contract rights. So at some point the NHL has to face the reality here, nobody and really nobody forced Nashville to match the offersheet they did so and now have to pay a huge junk of money for an elite defenseman, a guy who could easily become the next Chara.

I mean think about it, you are getting drafted by a team you don't want to play for for whatever reason, most players have to wait for years to get out (becoming UFA), why would they accept to lose another year of their career playing fo r an unwanted team? If the players bite on the 50/50 crap, the NHL should keep the status quo in terms of contracts otherwhise there is no deal to be made anytime soon.

[RippedOnNitro]

Not exactly. The PA is asking for a fixed dollar amount rather than a certain percentage. Depending on actual revenue, the percentage could be a wide range, though at least one previous proposal contained conditions such that it could not be more than 57% or less than 50%.

The article does seem to suggest that the PA wants the league to bear the losses from the missed games (I would be inclined to agree except the fight would likely be more than it's worth), though the comment from Fehr suggests the PA just wants to save those talks until after the basic foundation is settled.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

But I do have some questions.

1) What are the chances that the owners are willing to pay the losses from their own pocket? The longer the lockout continues the more games are lossed and the more the owners have to pay from their own pocket. Wouldn't that decrease the chances the owners are willing to pay it out of there own pocket?

2) In case the season is canceled, will the PA still demands that the owners pay the lost salaries from their own pocket (or maybe partially)?

3) Simple math used:
- Revenue was $3.3B last year = $1.89B salaries (57%)
- Revenue will be estimated $2.73B (they are talking about a 68-game schedule possible from 1st December, meaning 14 games are lost = 17% lost = 17% revenue lost) = $1.56B salaries (57%)
- That means a difference of $330M in player salaries...who's going to pay that?

Edited by RippedOnNitro, 19 November 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[hillbillywingsfan]

Well there is no way the players are going to give up money and their contract rights. So at some point the NHL has to face the reality here, nobody and really nobody forced Nashville to match the offersheet they did so and now have to pay a huge junk of money for an elite defenseman, a guy who could easily become the next Chara.

I mean think about it, you are getting drafted by a team you don't want to play for for whatever reason, most players have to wait for years to get out (becoming UFA), why would they accept to lose another year of their career playing fo r an unwanted team? If the players bite on the 50/50 crap, the NHL should keep the status quo in terms of contracts otherwhise there is no deal to be made anytime soon.

And the owners rightfully so will not be giving up their money any time soon so the players can all go over seas to play I guess. If that's what they want so bad. The idiot players that are running their mouths to the media need to shut up and let the big boys negotiate and stop crying.

Edited by hillbillywingsfan, 19 November 2012 - 10:22 AM.

[Buppy]

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

But I do have some questions.

1) What are the chances that the owners are willing to pay the losses from their own pocket? The longer the lockout continues the more games are lossed and the more the owners have to pay from their own pocket. Wouldn't that decrease the chances the owners are willing to pay it out of there own pocket?

2) In case the season is canceled, will the PA still demands that the owners pay the lost salaries from their own pocket (or maybe partially)?

3) Simple math used:
- Revenue was $3.3B last year = $1.89B salaries (57%)
- Revenue will be estimated $2.73B (they are talking about a 68-game schedule possible from 1st December, meaning 14 games are lost = 17% lost = 17% revenue lost) = $1.56B salaries (57%)
- That means a difference of $330M in player salaries...who's going to pay that?

I'd say there's no chance the owners are or ever will be willing to bear full liability for losses stemming from the lockout. I'd expect salaries to be pro-rated for the number of games actually played, and at most the owners will still pay the full $149M make whole payment they've been proposing. Less if the pro-rated salaries work out to much more than 50% of actual revenue.

If the full season is lost, I'd expect players would just be out their full salaries. Once a deal is reached, it will be retro-active to the date the last CBA expired, so players might get a cut of any revenue earned this year, which probably isn't a whole lot.

[Dabura]

And the owners rightfully so will not be giving up their money any time soon so the players can all go over seas to play I guess. If that's what they want so bad. The idiot players that are running their mouths to the media need to shut up and let the big boys negotiate and stop crying.

Go away, Gary. No one likes you.

[cusimano_brothers]

Two weeks sure fly by when you're having fun.

[Euro_Twins]

hibernating this winter?

It appears that way

[chances14]

That may be an argument against the front loaded deals, particularly those with large signing bonuses, but pushing UFA eligibility back a year does nothing in that respect, nor would changes to arbitration, nor ELC term. The link to revenue guarantees that a certain amount of money has to be spent.

Furthermore, a 5 year max contract and 5% variance isn't going to make someone like Weber any cheaper in the short term. He wouldn't have signed a 5 year deal for a sub-$8M cap hit. Likely would have been much closer to the $13.6M average he's getting for the first five years. Probably would raise the price for his later years as well.

as far as the elc term, they want to shorten it so that players for the most part don't reach free agency after their second contract, once you factor in the 5 year cap on contract length, which gives teams more control over that player. they want players to be more unproven when they come out of their elc so that they can sign them to cheaper deals just before they start to hit their prime, effectively trying to lower the market value of these players during their peak production years. they want to prevent the drew doughty contracts so to speak.

Edited by chances14, 19 November 2012 - 01:38 PM.

[Johnz96]

And the owners rightfully so will not be giving up their money any time soon so the players can all go over seas to play I guess. If that's what they want so bad. The idiot players that are running their mouths to the media need to shut up and let the big boys negotiate and stop crying.

Bettman's an idiot

[Buppy]

as far as the elc term, they want to shorten it so that players for the most part don't reach free agency after their second contract, once you factor in the 5 year cap on contract length, which gives teams more control over that player. they want players to be more unproven when they come out of their elc so that they can sign them to cheaper deals just before they start to hit their prime, effectively trying to lower the market value of these players during their peak production years. they want to prevent the drew doughty contracts so to speak.

Except with player compensation linked directly to revenue, it doesn't do anything to slow the inflation of player salaries. At most, some players end up making less while others (most likely the top UFAs) make even more. It may help low-budget teams afford their young stars more easily, and keep them a year longer, but at a cost of making it more difficult to keep them once they are eligible for UFA, and more difficult to add new UFAs.

Owners shouldn't be concerned with how the players divide their share among themselves. Certainly not so concerned to extend the lockout because of it.

[Wingzman91]

And the owners rightfully so will not be giving up their money any time soon so the players can all go over seas to play I guess. If that's what they want so bad. The idiot players that are running their mouths to the media need to shut up and let the big boys negotiate and stop crying.

Ya, get in your pen cattle.
How dare you have an opinion on your boss not letting you make a living.
You are a product and not a person.
You are under contract, that needs to be respected along with the man who signed it.
--PFFFFT--

Sounds like the only crying is from the turncoats on these boards and the PR boys running TSN right now.

A two week break was proposed, how is that negotiating???
Ian spoke up and threw Bettman under the bus, saying what all of us have said or thought at one point.
And what happened???
They got their asses back to the table, way to go and thank you Mr. White.

[frankgrimes]

Ya, get in your pen cattle.
How dare you have an opinion on your boss not letting you make a living.
You are a product and not a person.
You are under contract, that needs to be respected along with the man who signed it.
--PFFFFT--

Sounds like the only crying is from the turncoats on these boards and the PR boys running TSN right now.

A two week break was proposed, how is that negotiating???
Ian spoke up and threw Bettman under the bus, saying what all of us have said or thought at one point.
And what happened???
They got their asses back to the table, way to go and thank you Mr. White.

Great post thank you.

Love seeing classy guys like Toews, Suter and White voicing their understandable frustrations with mr. Midget and his BFF Jacobs.

A deal can get done soon but the NHL has to start being realistic!

Fehr is a great leader and the PA is not going to put up with all the crap, the NHL is trying (paid off idiots like Cox, focus groups or fanboy posters on some hockey forums).

But whatever the NHL is not going to recover easily this time, second lockout in seven years is hardly acceptable

Sent from my BlackBerry