Jump to content


NHL CBA negotiations- agreement reached

CBA NHL-NHLPA

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2438 replies to this topic

#1 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,245 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:53 PM

With Don Fehr's guantlet in the sand approach to the proposed NHL realignment, I think the upcoming CBA negotiations might get interesting.

I've seen some outlandish stuff like a recent THN article by Ken Campbell where he expects the owners to look for another ~25% salary rollback (which would bring the players' take down to 42.75% of leaguewide revenues - after doing the math Ken, you still think they're going to ask for that?).  Both items got me curious as to what each side will likely be looking for in the upcoming negotiations.

Some items that would / should be of importance to each side are items such as:

%age of revenues that go to the players;
what monies are considered 'revenues;'
hard cap / soft cap;
per team salary range;
tradeability of cap space;
what monies paid to players count towards their %age of revenues;
how to account for player retirement against the cap;
escrow;
guaranteed money;
arbitration;
rookie wage scale;
free agency;
pensions;
roster size;
revenue sharing;
season length;
Olympics / World Cup / international games;
usage of player images / team logos & unis;
morals clauses (including drug testing);
game playing rules;
discipline;
I'm sure I'm missing a few others.

I'd expect to see the players' share of the pie which is currently at 57% to stay fairly constant.  I'd be surprised if it goes up any and would also be surprised to see it end up below 54%.  I'd be shocked if it's less than 52%.

I'd expect to see some minor tweaks to what is included as 'hockey related revenue' but haven't looked closely at the list recently to guess as to what tweaks would be made.

The players will definitely push for a soft cap and some like Brian Burke are on record as wanting to be able to trade cap space.  I am definitely on the side of keeping a hard cap and keeping cap space specific to each team with no ability to trade it.  This helps to maintain a competitive balance in the league.  The big spenders can already outspend their weaker sisters in the front office and in amenities, and they've also figured out how to put serious money up front into contracts and then have the $'s fall over the length of the contract.  If they can also 'free up cap space' by buying some from somebody else for a player or pick, then there really would be no point to a cap and they might as well install a farcical system like MLB's 'luxury tax.'

I'd expect to see revisions to how much a contract can vary over the life of the contract and I'd expect to see the 20% of cap individual salary cap to remain in place.  I'd expect that player retirement will no longer wipe out the player's future cap hit, at least in the case of non-injury related retirements.  I could see them getting treated like ordinary course buyouts for salary cap matters (any variance of cap and actual $'s up to the point of the retirement then get stepped back out with either dead cap or excess cap space depending on whether it was a front loaded or back loaded deal).

As long as there is a hard cap in place, it is actually in the interest of the majority of players to have the cap $'s matching the actual $'s, because when teams like the Sabres give out $10MM on a $4.5MM contract that's an extra $5.5MM in player salary that counts towards their 57%.  I doubt the players will see it that way though and it will be interesting to see how the Kovy rules get amended.

I expect the players will push for wider bands around that average salary for each team (currently +/- $8MM for each team).  Not sure which way they'll push for wider bands.  If they're pushed wider by letting teams be further under the 57% salary, then they'll likely get more money at the end of the year as the escrow accounting will go further in their favor; if they push the other way, the nominal average salary will be higher, but they'll have to lose some of their escrow money at the end of the year.

I'd expect players will push for all guaranteed money to be at least 2/3's and probably shoot for 3/4's.  It's something the league could give in on and not really effect actual $'s out as long as they still end up with a hard cap.  They'll also push for expanded ability to get 1 way deals.  I doubt that will happen.

Nobody's happy with the way arbitration works now, so I don't expect to see much change there.  Maybe we'll see a change in comparables to be those contracts that were in place on the date the player filed for arbitration; if that occurs, I'd expect to see a reduction in the ability of clubs to walk away from an arbitrator's decision.

I don't exect much change in the rookie wage scale.

I'd expect free agency to start a year earlier, but perhaps with a 'franchise' tag on a 1 year deal for a player or 2 on a roster.

Any changes to the pension formula would probably be roughly offset by the %age players get.  Don't know enough about the current pension system to predict changes to it.

Roster size.  I don't expect any changes to that.  Though there will likely be revisions to waivers and re-entry waivers.

Revenue sharing will be an interesting one to look at.  The big market boys like the Strangers and Phlyers will push for more autonomy on their own websites.  I hope the small market teams and players don't let them get away with it.  I honestly would prefer to see even greater revenue sharing amongst teams.  A more level playing field is a good thing IMHO.

It'll be interesting to see if the players push for a shortened season.  If the owners push for a reduced revenue %age to the players, that would likely be their 1st response (well, 2nd response, the 1st will be ###### you).

The last few items on the list I'd expect to see posturing both ways, but not much movement and things will stay similar to the way they are now.

All in all, I think this current deal has been good to both sides.  Though there are some needed modifications (primarily to address details of the cap that weren't anticipated in the 1st deal) and both have some desired modifications, I hope they realize how lucky they got this last time.  It really is a shame that Kelly was such a ###### pinhead regarding the player e-mails.  He seemed to have their best interest in mind (IMHO) and wanted to have a partnership struck with the league but his fear of the hardliners in the union got the better of him - he ###### up royally.  Someone with a view of management between that of Eagleson and Goodenow would have been a good thing (again IMHO); Fehr is far more of a Goodenow.

#2 Eleven

Eleven

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo

Posted 09 January 2012 - 04:57 PM

Wow. Can't address all of that this year, but I'll stick to the hard/soft cap distinction.  It is essential to the survival of the league that there be a hard salary cap.  I say this as a fan of a team that recently became one of the "haves" in terms of spending.  If hockey becomes like baseball, forget it; it's not going to work in small- and mid-size markets (unless they have generous fracking owners).

#3 Who Else?

Who Else?

    Fourth Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Erie, PA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:02 PM

This is never going to happen, but non guaranteed contracts sure would make things more interesting.  Though i am not in favor of them being as harsh as the NFL.

#4 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,245 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:03 PM

View PostEleven, on 09 January 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

Wow. Can't address all of that this year, but I'll stick to the hard/soft cap distinction.  It is essential to the survival of the league that there be a hard salary cap.  I say this as a fan of a team that recently became one of the "haves" in terms of spending.  If hockey becomes like baseball, forget it; it's not going to work in small- and mid-size markets (unless they have generous fracking owners).
Absolutely.  As mentioned above, I don't even want to see cap space tradeable within a hard cap system.  The less parity there is, the more likely you end up with true haves & have nots and overall the interest goes down for the sport.  I want to see a Sabres' dynasty, but don't want to see it by having the return of the mid-late '70's.  That league was a mess operationally.

#5 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:12 PM

I just wonder how Fehr will use his newly acquired bargaining chip.  You know he's going to "reluctantly" fold on opposing the realignment in order to get something else back in return.

#6 nobody

nobody

    Title? Someday...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:nowhere

Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:16 PM

It is so tempting to want to go back to a have/have not league now that the Sabres would be one of the have teams.  But even then there is no guarantee that a Cup would be won.  But for Sabres fans I think it is a tough call - do you take the 'deal with the devil' of a better chance to win the Cup with the knowledge that the league will be in serious trouble?  While so tempting; I agree that you need to look out for what is best for the league over what is best for a team.  Of course I don't know if the players are doing that by rejecting the realignment.

#7 beerme1

beerme1

    First Line Center

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2012 - 06:26 PM

As far as the topic name I have a thought and it's only magnified with that pos Fehr and that pos Bettman being the two guys that need to talk to each other. The thought that comes to mind is:

DOOMED

#8 SportsFan88

SportsFan88

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:First Arena

Posted 09 January 2012 - 06:37 PM

Hope the proposed realignment doesnt happen.

Was hearing they are thinking of the idea to expand how many guys an organization can have under contract as a whole. Would like to see it increase.

#9 SportsFan88

SportsFan88

    Prospect

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:First Arena

Posted 10 January 2012 - 08:35 AM

View PostSabres Fan In NS, on 10 January 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

To quote nfreeman ...

Wholly mackerel!!

Could have quoted Joe Bowen(Leafs broadcaster) if there was a goal mentioned somewhere in there, lol.

#10 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 10 January 2012 - 09:28 AM

View PostSabres Fan In NS, on 10 January 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

To quote nfreeman ...

Wholly mackerel!!

Forgive me for the thread police moment here, but did you really have to quote the whole post just to say that?


Anyway, Taro, I missed it the first time around but now I'm curious about potential modifications to the waiver process.  Do you have something in mind there?  I could see them trying to tweak re-entry a bit, but I can't picture them doing much to the standard waiver process.

The other one is the idea of a shortened season.  I couldn't imagine either side ever seriously considering it.  The only argument would be the decrease in injuries, but to this date, I have yet to see any players union that seems to care about that one bit when compared to the loss in revenue it would bring.

#11 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,245 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:31 PM

View Postshrader, on 10 January 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Forgive me for the thread police moment here, but did you really have to quote the whole post just to say that?


Anyway, Taro, I missed it the first time around but now I'm curious about potential modifications to the waiver process.  Do you have something in mind there?  I could see them trying to tweak re-entry a bit, but I can't picture them doing much to the standard waiver process.

The other one is the idea of a shortened season.  I couldn't imagine either side ever seriously considering it.  The only argument would be the decrease in injuries, but to this date, I have yet to see any players union that seems to care about that one bit when compared to the loss in revenue it would bring.
Actually, I could see a modified 'injury exception' for players that would have to clear re-entry to come up.

If a younger (read: cheaper) player goes out on IR, if a team could replace him for a brief time (say 2-4 games, depending upon the time of the season and the disparity in contracts) with the vet and then claw the cap space back over the next few games (say 8-10) then some players that are SOL for playing in the NHL even though they're good enough might be able to get back in.  If the team doesn't get the cap space back, they lose it next year - like teams already do for bonuses paid at the end of the season that put a team over the current year's cap.

The player coming back would still have to clear waivers to come up, but a team grabbing him would have to take on the full contract (not 50%).  He'd also have to clear regular waivers to get sent back down.

The benefits to the players is having a large contract won't necessarily ban a player that could be playing in the NHL (such as Souray last year) from being in the NHL.  The downside to the players is you now potentially have another large contract in-league eating up a larger portion of the total player compensation's 57%.  This downside is quite minimal when spread out over 650 or so players.

The benefits to the owners is that a large contract they buried at the beginning of the year that nobody else wanted because they're all set with their rosters might have some takers later in the year.  They won't have to eat 1/2 the contract to get rid of it and by making the player clear waivers both ways, the player might get grabbed after he's shown that he can still play in the league.

I also could see minor modifications to how call-ups & waivers are modified after the trade deadline.


As to the shortened season, I don't expect them to agree to shortening the season, but if the owners try to reduce the %age that goes to the players I could see the players come back with a proposal to reduce total $'s (not the %age they get) in return for x games off the schedule.  And then they go round and round.  The AHL reduced its schedule this year, and the NHL did drop its 2 neutral games off the 84 game schedule several years back; so it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility, though I'd say it has a VERY low probability of happening.

#12 Derrico

Derrico

    Second Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,815 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greater Toronto Area

Posted 07 April 2012 - 01:05 PM

I think we should have a thread to discuss something none of us really want to discuss....the expiration of the NHL CBA.

Negotiations are not expected to take place until June 1.  Will there be another labour stoppage?  I can't see this happening due to the lost season in 2004-2005.  How will the new CBA affect the cap?  There is significant talk of an amnesty clause where a contract can be bought out without affecting the salary cap (cough Lenio).  Will this be negotiated?

Here is a link to get you thinking about one of the uglier sides of professional sports.

http://www.sbnation....salary-cap-2012

Discuss.....

#13 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,422 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 16 May 2012 - 11:25 AM

The NHL has officially provided notice to the NHLPA that it wants to terminate and/or modify the CBA.  Not shocking but, there it is.

#14 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,422 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 16 May 2012 - 02:57 PM

FWIW the CBA states that either side must provide notice 120 days prior to end of current CBA that they want to terminate/modify it or it gets automatically renewed for one year.

That would have been this Friday.

#15 Taro T

Taro T

    It leads you here despite your destination under the MW tonight.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,245 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2012 - 06:22 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 16 May 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

FWIW the CBA states that either side must provide notice 120 days prior to end of current CBA that they want to terminate/modify it or it gets automatically renewed for one year.

That would have been this Friday.
Thus the notification coming this week.

If nearly anyone but Don Fehr was running the union, I'd be very confident that there won't be any regular season games missed.  The sides should be able to bridge their differences as they aren't trying to create an entirely new system but merely trying to get a bigger slice of the pie.

With Fehr running the show, I'm not too certain I need to schedule my ~October 5th trip to the Mmarena.  Though I'd be surprised if the NHL's regular season starts later than the NBA's does.

If it does work out that the Strangers win the SC this year, I will be very ticked at a lockout.  The last time they won, the league managed to squander any bump in interest by not playing another meaningful game the rest of that calendar year.  :censored:   I'd hate to see them mess up the follow-up to a potential NY-LA final.

And as an aside, if that does end up the final, any chance the Sabres can get a do-over and try to start out over in Europe again? :doh:

#16 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,018 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2012 - 07:04 PM

I hope any new CBA includes term limits for coaches and GMs with no grandfather clauses.

#17 qwksndmonster

qwksndmonster

    Livve Neilo

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Horseheads

Posted 16 May 2012 - 11:01 PM

View PostDeLuca67, on 16 May 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I hope any new CBA includes term limits for coaches and GMs with no grandfather clauses.
Nice :lol:

#18 SDS

SDS

    #7

  • SS Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:00 AM

View PostDeLuca67, on 16 May 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

I hope any new CBA includes term limits for coaches and GMs with no grandfather clauses.

With all the complaining about Ruff and Regier this is now officially every single other thread you post in. Including GDTs.

#19 Ghost of Dwight Drane

Ghost of Dwight Drane

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:47 AM

View PostSDS, on 17 May 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

With all the complaining about Ruff and Regier this is now officially every single other thread you post in. Including GDTs.

Thanks to Ruff and Regier, he hasn't had a GDT to complain in for over a month......... :o

#20 deluca67

deluca67

    67 - The Number of the Beast!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,018 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:16 AM

View PostSDS, on 17 May 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

With all the complaining about Ruff and Regier this is now officially every single other thread you post in. Including GDTs.
There are 30 coaches and GMs, if you want to make it only about Lindy and Darcy, that's on you.

View PostGhost of Dwight Drane, on 17 May 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

Thanks to Ruff and Regier, he hasn't had a GDT to complain in for over a month......... :o
One good thing, over the past ten years the golf handicap of Sabre fans has dropped significantly :doh: .

Edited by DeLuca67, 17 May 2012 - 06:17 AM.


#21 RazielSabre

RazielSabre

    Kain refused the sacrifice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,852 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Kent, England

Posted 17 May 2012 - 06:38 AM

View PostGhost of Dwight Drane, on 17 May 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

Thanks to Ruff and Regier, he hasn't had a GDT to complain in for over a month......... :o

Technically its thanks to the team. No-one performed as well as they should have this season. How culpable Ruff is is debatable but Regier only controls who's on the ice, not what they do so therefore his culpability is extremely limited.

In short, your wrong.

#22 SwampD

SwampD

    All Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Jersey, orig. NT

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:23 AM

View PostRazielSabre, on 17 May 2012 - 06:38 AM, said:

Technically its thanks to the team. No-one performed as well as they should have this season. How culpable Ruff is is debatable but Regier only controls who's on the ice, not what they do so therefore his culpability is extremely limited.

In short, your wrong.
When I read this post, all I can think of is, "I know you are but what am I?"
:wallbash:

#23 Sabre Dance

Sabre Dance

    Grin and bear it...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South of the city.

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:48 AM

My take on the CBA is:

1) The owners make too much money.
2) Some players make too much money; others don't make enough.
3) I don't really care what teams play in what conferences/divisions/tiers; I just want to watch entertaining hockey, preferably with the Sabres winning a lot.
4) If the owners are dumb enough to lock out the players again, NHL will stand for "No Hockey League".  That would suck.

:P

#24 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:25 AM

View PostSabre Dance, on 17 May 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

My take on the CBA is:

1) The owners make too much money.
2) Some players make too much money; others don't make enough.

You need to phrase #1 in a similar way to what you said in #2.  They're not all making money the way a team like the Rangers or Leafs are.  Some are losing money.  We as fans may not like it, but they have every right to protect themselves just like the players do.

#25 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:21 AM

View Postshrader, on 17 May 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

You need to phrase #1 in a similar way to what you said in #2.  They're not all making money the way a team like the Rangers or Leafs are.  Some are losing money.  We as fans may not like it, but they have every right to protect themselves just like the players do.

None of the players are losing money.

#26 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:58 AM

It'll be interesting to see what the PA wants in exchange for league reorganization.

IMO the PA is not going to back down so easily this time.  The league is profitable, and the profitability is growing, right?  I'm sure that the PA will want a bigger piece of that pie in exchange for things like reorganization, and other non-salary issues.

#27 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:04 AM

My take: If the main argument is reorganization vs.  Olympics the negotiations are going well. If the main argument is 55% vs 50% we won't play 82 games next season.

#28 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:12 AM

View PostLastPommerFan, on 17 May 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

My take: If the main argument is reorganization vs.  Olympics the negotiations are going well. If the main argument is 55% vs 50% we won't play 82 games next season.

I expect that most likely it will be some combo of those two concepts, ie. NHL wants re-org, PA counters to say OK if 53% revenues are for player salaries.  It is going to be a one side wants X, the other side will request that salary levels be adjusted to "purchase" X in the CBA sort of negotiation.

Edited by weave, 17 May 2012 - 10:13 AM.


#29 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:19 AM

View PostTaro T, on 16 May 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

If it does work out that the Strangers win the SC this year, I will be very ticked at a lockout.  The last time they won, the league managed to squander any bump in interest by not playing another meaningful game the rest of that calendar year.  :censored:   I'd hate to see them mess up the follow-up to a potential NY-LA final.

So the Rangers won the cup and then they got locked out.  Then Torts won a cup with Tampa and they got locked out.  So now if the Rags win with Torts behind the bench, does that mean total meltdown?


And back to the discussion, when you guys say re-organization, are you talking about the realignment the league is trying to put together?  That has so little to do with any of this.  It's a minor negotiation chip.  It may be used to bring the Olympics back into play, but it is going to have absolutely nothing to do with how they decide to split revenue.  That money stuff is going to come down to that same old game of chicken, see who breaks first.

#30 d4rksabre

d4rksabre

    Woof

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,001 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A stolen Panzer

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:23 AM

It'd be nice to hope that both sides recognize that the best thing they can do is play a full season with how much more popular hockey is right now. It doesn't help anyone if there's a lockout.

#31 weave

weave

    Self-appointed Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,388 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:in your head

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:52 AM

View Postshrader, on 17 May 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

And back to the discussion, when you guys say re-organization, are you talking about the realignment the league is trying to put together?  That has so little to do with any of this.  It's a minor negotiation chip.  It may be used to bring the Olympics back into play, but it is going to have absolutely nothing to do with how they decide to split revenue.  That money stuff is going to come down to that same old game of chicken, see who breaks first.

Yes I am talking about reallignment, but I disagree when you say it won't have anything to do with how revenues are split.  I believe, like many union negotiations I am familiar with, it will come down to "if mgt wants it, they'll have to pay us for it".  And of course the owners will be doing the same in reverse.  No, reallignment isn't a huge issue.  But I expect it will be one of many bargaining chips the PA will use to increase the % of revenues going into player salaries.

#32 dEnnis the Menace

dEnnis the Menace

    D63

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,754 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central NY (Fingerlakes)

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:59 AM

View Postd4rksabre, on 17 May 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

It'd be nice to hope that both sides recognize that the best thing they can do is play a full season with how much more popular hockey is right now. It doesn't help anyone if there's a lockout.

the popularity will grow if there's a LA NY cup finals too I think.  And no, a lockout does nothing good for any party involved.

#33 OverPowerYou

OverPowerYou

    And Ottawa Must BE Destroyed...

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:05 AM

View PostdEnnis the Menace, on 17 May 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

the popularity will grow if there's a LA NY cup finals too I think.  And no, a lockout does nothing good for any party involved.

It gives the Sabres a lot less games to lose in the first half of the season like they usually do.

#34 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:30 AM

View Postshrader, on 17 May 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

So the Rangers won the cup and then they got locked out.  Then Torts won a cup with Tampa and they got locked out.  So now if the Rags win with Torts behind the bench, does that mean total meltdown?


And back to the discussion, when you guys say re-organization, are you talking about the realignment the league is trying to put together?  That has so little to do with any of this.  It's a minor negotiation chip.  It may be used to bring the Olympics back into play, but it is going to have absolutely nothing to do with how they decide to split revenue.  That money stuff is going to come down to that same old game of chicken, see who breaks first.

Agreed, I think the cosmetic issues will be bargained against each other. The Revenue issue will be the players staring at the current level, which i think is around 55%, and the owners wanting to go to NBA/NFL levels which are closer to 50%. The next CBA will be at 50-51%, the only question is how many games the players are willing to sit out before they accept the inevitable.

View Postweave, on 17 May 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Yes I am talking about reallignment, but I disagree when you say it won't have anything to do with how revenues are split.  I believe, like many union negotiations I am familiar with, it will come down to "if mgt wants it, they'll have to pay us for it".  And of course the owners will be doing the same in reverse.  No, reallignment isn't a huge issue.  But I expect it will be one of many bargaining chips the PA will use to increase the % of revenues going into player salaries.

This isn't like typical contract negotiations where the company stands to lose money if the work doesn't get performed. Enough of these owners lose money if the work IS performed to provide significant strength to the league.

#35 TrueBluePhD

TrueBluePhD

    First Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,756 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cheektowaga, NY

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:30 AM

If the league ditches a hard cap, I may be done.  I agree with others who believe it is absolutely essential for the league going forward to maintain a hard cap.

On revenues, I fully expect the owners to push for a reduction of the players' share of revenue.  I don't think they'll get a straight 50% like the NFL did, but a band similar to the NBA (which I believe was 48-52% based on a number of factors) I could see being implemented in exchange for escrow reform/removal.  

I'd love to see rules/enforcement addressed to get the game closer to where it was out of the previous lockout in terms of flow and pace.  Discipline still needs to be fixed so it's less of a crap shoot as to who gets what for what, but I'm not holding my breath on either of these issues.

Some changes to buyouts and waivers I can see happening, but I don't think that will be a major sticking point.  I'd assume at least some owners push for an amnesty clause.

Overall I don't think the league is going to lose games--this is much more of an NFL-style lockout than NBA-style (yes, I'm assuming there will be a lockout) where the sides are fighting over how to split up the pie, rather than trying to come up with an entirely new recipe for the pie.

#36 26CornerBlitz

26CornerBlitz

    1970

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Jersey

Posted 17 May 2012 - 11:39 AM

Fehr the Donald!!!

#37 shrader

shrader

    National Oranization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,613 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 12:00 PM

View Postd4rksabre, on 17 May 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

It'd be nice to hope that both sides recognize that the best thing they can do is play a full season with how much more popular hockey is right now. It doesn't help anyone if there's a lockout.

"I don't care about the future, all I care about is today.  If this move stuffs my wallet immediately, I'm good with it."

#38 Spndnchz

Spndnchz

    Ass. Player Agent

  • SS Mod Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,422 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Fracking Shanahan's house

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:19 PM

Players share is 57% right now.  Going to 50% is a hell of a lot of money.  IMO players made concessions last time to try and fix the owners problems.  If the owners can't fix their problems why should the players give them more money.  Revenues are up something like 50%.  If you can't manage a team then sell.  Quitchrbitchin.

#39 5th line wingnutt

5th line wingnutt

    Aging Sucks

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 274 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NC

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:38 PM

View PostTrueBluePhD, on 17 May 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:


Some changes to buyouts and waivers I can see happening, but I don't think that will be a major sticking point.  I'd assume at least some owners push for an amnesty clause.


What changes would you like to see?

#40 Glass Case Of Emotion

Glass Case Of Emotion

    Woah-Oh! We're half way there...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester/Finger Lakes

Posted 17 May 2012 - 01:40 PM

View Postspndnchz, on 17 May 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Players share is 57% right now.  Going to 50% is a hell of a lot of money.  IMO players made concessions last time to try and fix the owners problems.  If the owners can't fix their problems why should the players give them more money.  Revenues are up something like 50%.  If you can't manage a team then sell.  Quitchrbitchin.

Because the whole pie belongs to the owners. Without the TV contracts and Stadium leases, there is no pie. 7% of $3B is $210M per year, divided by 700 players is an average pay cut of $300k. I imagine something like a prorated system of cuts based on a 12% rollback so league min drops to like $485k and Brad Richard's goes from $12M to $10.5M. Best the players can hope for, IMO, is 52%.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: CBA, NHL-NHLPA