Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jagknife

CBA Talks

34 posts in this topic

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kind of real 'low ball' offer. But they know its a negotiation and fully expect the players to counter. Maybe seven year limit on contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 seasons is a bit much though, puts the player past his prime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being UFA

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

So it seems, based upon their starting position, NHL is willing to settle for a revenue split of 52% NHLPA, 48% owners. That will be a tough pill to swallow for the players, but it is smething they might be willing to do if the NHL drops the escrow requirement.

I can't see the union caving on the length of time before players become free agents. They might trade that off for contract length limits of 7-8 years. Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with. I also don't see the entry level conract length being increased, especially if the union caves on the revenue split.

Looking back, it is amazing how well the last labor deal ended up for the players (so well in fact that they want to continue with it, and the owners are looking to get a better deal this time around). The players fought to avoid the cap, but the fact that a salary floor was implemented and the cap/floor have kept rising at ridiulous paces have basically caused parity in the league and been much better for the players than they ever coud have imagined.

I just hope they can resolve this without missing any games. Fehr is a very tough negotiator and is good at what he does, and based upon his past history with the MLBPA, he is not afraid of taking these things to the mat (hell, the strike he led in 1994 resulted in a World Series being cancelled).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my mind this prob means a shortened season cause thats really low balling it...5 year max contract

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the NHL isn't a fan of the Parise/Suter deals, frankly I'd be inclined to agree. I mean, not quite to 10 years before UFA and max 5 year contract, but to the principles.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with.

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)

Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 5 year for entry level contract may be a bit to long for a player to wait, by 3 years you got a good read most of the time on a player. Asking them to play at what could be bear minimum contract, I don't know is this too long? I see a potential downside to this but I agree these lifetime UFA BS contracts have got to get more realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)

Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.

Essentially that would get rid of restricted free agency and that's a problem. If they were to get rid of arbitration they would at least need to add a cap discount for re-signing RFA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially that would get rid of restricted free agency and that's a problem. If they were to get rid of arbitration they would at least need to add a cap discount for re-signing RFA's.

Nah, it just gives owners a little more power in this aspect of negotiating with a RFA, it wouldn't get rid of them, just give them less ability to bite back. Like a qualifying offer would either have to be accepted of rejected still, but now instead of going to arbitration with an unsatisfying qualifier, you would go onto the market, still as a RFA if they wanted to keep some sort of compensation in place. They'd just have to hash over scenarios and values for these RFA's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see it dropped, (but not so much if the UFA time gets pushed higher.)

Sure there is. You don't like their Qualifier, don't sign it and go somewhere else to play, if there is actually someone making you an offer that is.

I see a LOT of room for negotiating with all the terms in play.

Don't sign it? The player doesn't have to sign it, the team just has to make the qualifying offer to retain the rights + protect from offer sheets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it seems, based upon their starting position, NHL is willing to settle for a revenue split of 52% NHLPA, 48% owners. That will be a tough pill to swallow for the players, but it is smething they might be willing to do if the NHL drops the escrow requirement.

I can't see the union caving on the length of time before players become free agents. They might trade that off for contract length limits of 7-8 years. Can't see salary arbitration going away as there is no good system to replace it with. I also don't see the entry level conract length being increased, especially if the union caves on the revenue split.

That's a reasonable guess for the final CBA, and that would certainly take missing half the season to make happen. If it's true that most NHL teams lose money in the regular season, then there's no reason why that wouldn't happen too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't sign it? The player doesn't have to sign it, the team just has to make the qualifying offer to retain the rights + protect from offer sheets.

hmm not quite, by making the qualifier, the team retains the right to match a signed offer sheet for 7 days. If the player doesn't sign the qualifier, he remains an RFA and can negotiate with other teams. He can get offers from other clubs, and the team he's on can choose to match it or let em walk. Granted, the new team would have to give some sort of compensation, but I can see that being adjusted too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, it just gives owners a little more power in this aspect of negotiating with a RFA, it wouldn't get rid of them, just give them less ability to bite back. Like a qualifying offer would either have to be accepted of rejected still, but now instead of going to arbitration with an unsatisfying qualifier, you would go onto the market, still as a RFA if they wanted to keep some sort of compensation in place. They'd just have to hash over scenarios and values for these RFA's.

This would give more power to the players. It would essentially make them unrestricted free agents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so a player would sign an entry level of 5 years... then sign a 5 years maximum contract... then it would bring him DIRECTLY to free agency as an unrestricted free agent... there would be no way around it unless you sign him 4 years or something...

i really dont think the players will agree with a 5 years entry level contract especially when you saw guys like Tavares, Stamkos and Doughty cashing in BIG MONEY at 21 years old... of course owners would like it... i'd certainly like to have Larsson and Henrique costing 1,8m COMBINED for 5 years lol

personally to be fair to everyone i'd keep the entry level at 3 years, 7 years max contract and i'm not to sure of the period players should play before reaching UFA... im glad we got Kovy in his prime but it sucks to see Zach go in his prime too lol

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will have to be some concessions made by the owners to get the NHLPA to agree to these proposed changes that only financially favour the owners. Changing what is considered NHL revenue reduces the pot for the players and then the cuts in percentages and the increased length of the contracts only spells LOCKOUT for the NHL next season.

I hope the owners understand they are working with cracked eggs.

Edited by LucifersDog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This would give more power to the players. It would essentially make them unrestricted free agents.

But... they are not UFA's

UFA's signing elsewhere nets no compensation for the original team, these RFA's signing elsewhere get the original team draft picks from the new team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... they are not UFA's

UFA's signing elsewhere nets no compensation for the original team, these RFA's signing elsewhere get the original team draft picks from the new team.

This is how it already works now. Players don't have to sign the qualifying offer. By removing arbitration, you just increase the chance of hold outs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is how it already works now. Players don't have to sign the qualifying offer. By removing arbitration, you just increase the chance of hold outs.

Which is why I can see it going the way of the Dodo.

By removing arbitration, I think it adds power to the owners to not have to pay higher $$ for a player. Now, I have not been a close follower of the arbitration, but I do not recall ANY player being taken to arbitration by the team to save money, it is mostly, if not always, the player seeking more money.

I'm going to see what google knows about that stat. ph34r.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why I can see it going the way of the Dodo.

By removing arbitration, I think it adds power to the owners to not have to pay higher $$ for a player. Now, I have not been a close follower of the arbitration, but I do not recall ANY player being taken to arbitration by the team to save money, it is mostly, if not always, the player seeking more money.

I'm going to see what google knows about that stat. ph34r.gif

Players have been taken to arbitration to try to reduce their contract. I can't remember the last time it happened - Parise was threatened with it last year, and Mason Raymond was threatened with it this year but he settled. Basically it's a good way to get a player really angry at you, to trash him in an arbitration hearing.

Arbitration isn't going away. I wonder if they will try to change to baseball-style arbitration where the team names a number, the player names a number, and the arbitrator selects one of those numbers. In hockey, the arbitrator can award anything within the range that the team and player pick, leading players to ask for the moon and teams to ask for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arbitration isn't going away.

I wonder if they will try to change to baseball-style arbitration where the team names a number, the player names a number, and the arbitrator selects one of those numbers. In hockey, the arbitrator can award anything within the range that the team and player pick, leading players to ask for the moon and teams to ask for nothing.

I can see why the owners would want it gone, it really has only MOSTLY worked to the benefit of the NHLPA. And it would be "something" that the players could "give up" that won't hurt too bad.

That is an interesting point. It could definitely pull the players $ down to earth to benefit the owners, and still raise the players pay in probably the majority of the cases. As long as they made a reasonable request that is. So I could also see that as a negotiated "give" on the part of the NHLPA and the owners.

I'm gettin rant2.gif'd a lot lately!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when do the fans get the chance to negotiate? Players make too much, while the owners risk it all for them...something's gotta give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when do the fans get the chance to negotiate? Players make too much, while the owners risk it all for them...something's gotta give.

It would be nice if we had some say but really we are just paying customers and these are labor negotiations. When do customers ever get involved in labor negotiations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the paying customers find the labor practices of a particular entity to be abhorrent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the paying customers find the labor practices of a particular entity to be abhorrent?

Do you have any examples of when something like that gave customers the chance to sit down at the negotiating table with the employees and employers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0