Dead

Lockout 2012-2013 (Hockey's back!)

   130 votes

  1. 1. When will we see hockey?

    • Oct 12
      10
    • Nov 12
      19
    • Dec 12
      26
    • Jan 13
      33
    • Feb 13
      1
    • Mar 13
      0
    • Apr 13
      0
    • Oct 13
      14
    • Never
      27

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

1,718 posts in this topic

It does look like the league made a pretty decent concession in revenue sharing. I'm not current on what past proposals included but they're going from the current rate of sharing about $150M in revenue to $200M. The PA started out asking for $240M. That's JUST a little more than meeting them halfway.

The NHLPA asked for that in exchange for a larger share of HRR though still right? Still I did not hear that. That's the face saving concession from the owners (and i'm sure the poorer owners are content with it as well). That makes the deal a little better. Still I expect Fehr to play hardball. Too many concessions from the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I doubt this will be the deal maker, at least we are moving in the right direction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GlobeKPD: Fehr: ''Would like to believe after we are done [with review]....that it's an excellent starting point and there's a deal to be made.''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something? What are the owners conceding with this offer? 50-50 sounds nice and fair but at the end of the day they are still asking the players to take a 7% cut while they give themselves a 7% raise, right? What are the players getting out of this?

A) Fairness

B) No cutback of the players salaries this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's 28 years old AND 8 years played.

I think it would give Zajac an extra year as an RFA. He'll be 28, but will have only played seven years in 2013.

The benchmark was 27 OR 7, whichever comes first. So even adding one year both Zajac and Clarkson would be pending UFAs based on their ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The benchmark was 27 OR 7, whichever comes first. So even adding one year both Zajac and Clarkson would be pending UFAs based on their ages.

28 and 8 is apparently what Bettman's proposal is, unless my information was wrong. 27 or 7 is what the past CBA is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at the least I think we've jumped right into "end game" negotiations. Season won't start Nov 1....likely mid Nov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) Fairness

B) No cutback of the players salaries this year

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

Like I said, if they don't like it, they don't have to accept it, and can continue not to get paid for however long they think they can manage it. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

A lot of the players would probably be very happy to accept that. The NHLPA is kind of a joke, the league stars are still making millions while the majority of the PA is suffering massive paycuts. The players making a lot less right now will love a small decrease in HRR percentage to get their huge actual increase in salary, as compared to their other options.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if this deal gets accepted if Nov 3rd against Pittsburgh at home would be our first game and then they would just try to make up the games missed inbetween the already scheduled games or if they completely adjust the schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

at this point people have to stop seeing this at a childish game of who's giving more and who's not making any concession everything, they need to find a fair deal thats it.

i mean i think it sucks that the owners have all the power and got everything they wanted but still

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at the least I think we've jumped right into "end game" negotiations. Season won't start Nov 1....likely mid Nov.

I think it will start Nov 2nd like they offered, both parties want an 82 gm season for gate revenue and no lost paychecks. No lost paychecks is huge for the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how the players would find this to be fair, and making the same salaries they are currently under contract for isn't a concession.

50-50 in revenue is absolutely fair compared to what players get in other sports. Not to mention it's right in between the owners' and players' most recent proposals anyway. Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

The players (I hope) weren't expecting the sun, moon and stars, they just didn't want to be bullied imo. We'll find out if that's true soon enough. The owners offered an olive branch, but also put the ball squarely in the players' court, if they can't at least work out a deal with this framework within the next couple of weeks they'll absolutely look like the bad guys. Steve Fehr's own words were 'we can work out a deal in six hours if we agree on HRR'. If they can't agree on 50-50 then they're worse than the owners are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50-50 in revenue is absolutely fair compared to what players get in other sports. Not to mention it's right in between the owners' and players' most recent proposals anyway. Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

The players (I hope) weren't expecting the sun, moon and stars, they just didn't want to be bullied imo. We'll find out if that's true soon enough. The owners offered an olive branch, but also put the ball squarely in the players' court, if they can't at least work out a deal with this framework within the next couple of weeks they'll absolutely look like the bad guys. Steve Fehr's own words were 'we can work out a deal in six hours if we agree on HRR'. If they can't agree on 50-50 then they're worse than the owners are.

It's not fair at all. The NFL CBA isn't fair, not by a long shot. Neither is the NBA CBA. The only one that approaches fairness is the MLB. HRR is defined differently in the NHL than it is in the other major sports and so that affects things. Still, this offer is something to build off of - even if we miss half the season, which I still think is what ends up happening, this is a step in the right direction. The players have to understand that fair or unfair, the system they're in, their paychecks are getting cut. It's not fair, but there's nothing they can do about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not fair at all. The NFL CBA isn't fair, not by a long shot. Neither is the NBA CBA. The only one that approaches fairness is the MLB. HRR is defined differently in the NHL than it is in the other major sports and so that affects things. Still, this offer is something to build off of - even if we miss half the season, which I still think is what ends up happening, this is a step in the right direction. The players have to understand that fair or unfair, the system they're in, their paychecks are getting cut. It's not fair, but there's nothing they can do about it.

The NFL doesn't have guaranteed contracts, inherently their CBA isn't fair just because of that. I don't know enough about the NBA but when mediocre players routinely make $90 and $100 million under the 'soft cap' I'd say that's pretty fair. Perhaps the main point of contention that might be described as unfair is the Bird rule which tries to compel players into staying with their current team by enabling them to offer more money and years. Or maybe contract length being limited, which the NHL's trying to shoot for now.

Besides, I was making a comment about 50-50 split of HRR being fair in comparison to other sports, not the CBA as a whole.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, if they don't like it, they don't have to accept it, and can continue not to get paid for however long they think they can manage it. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.

Well I guess that depends on if they think they can get a better deal long-term by holding out short-term. I know fair has nothing to do with it, that was in response to NJDevs4978's answer that the players get fairness out of this offer.

at this point people have to stop seeing this at a childish game of who's giving more and who's not making any concession everything, they need to find a fair deal thats it.

i mean i think it sucks that the owners have all the power and got everything they wanted but still

I really don't care that much about who gives what, I was just trying to assess how realistic it is for this proposal to mean the beginning of the end of this lockout. Actually one thing in the CBA that I do care about is whether or not the players can participate in the Olympics. Has anyone read anything about this proposal addressing that at all?

Making the same salary is a concession compared to the prior offers, it was one of the main sticking points for the union toward doing a deal.

Of course it's a good deal compared to previous ridiculous offers, but I don't think Fehr and the players consider themselves so powerless that they should consider that a concession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I just don't care anymore who gets what and how much and what is fair.

I just want hockey.....

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know enough about the NBA but when mediocre players routinely make $90 and $100 million under the 'soft cap' I'd say that's pretty fair.

The NBA CBA isn't fair in a weird way. Because they have max contract sizes, the superstar players are all underpaid. Lebron James gets 17.5 million a year. He's worth at least 40 million a year. All the other mediocre players are then overpaid since they take the superstar players' share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find myself more on the owners side, but ideally, I'd like to see this:

* 50% of previous seasons HRR to set that years cap

* No Escrow, No Rollbacks

* Another buyout period to get everyone in compliance with the cap

* Keep free agency at 28... that was the players only real win last time,

* Limit long term signings from after your rookie contract to 35... and at 35 you need a new 35+ contract.

* Contracts should be like your cap, equally spread across the deal. No up front bonuses or front loading.

I still want to see this ultimately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how anyone can be on the owners' side unless they are there for competitive balance reasons. The owners control an effective monopoly with the aid of governments willing to aid said monopoly. I understand that players get paid millions to pay a children's game, but that is because the owners are willing to pay them that kind of money - the players would still be there if the top salary was $100,000 (well okay, many of them wouldn't be, but that's neither here nor there). The owners have shown little desire to share revenue even though they are allowed to operate as a single entity when it comes to collective bargaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want there to be a season by the St. Patricks day whereabouts game. Turning 21 a couple weeks before. Would be an awesome experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand how anyone can be on the owners' side unless they are there for competitive balance reasons. The owners control an effective monopoly with the aid of governments willing to aid said monopoly. I understand that players get paid millions to pay a children's game, but that is because the owners are willing to pay them that kind of money - the players would still be there if the top salary was $100,000 (well okay, many of them wouldn't be, but that's neither here nor there). The owners have shown little desire to share revenue even though they are allowed to operate as a single entity when it comes to collective bargaining.

Your statements seems contradictory? If the top salary was 100k or whatever (doesn't matter)... the players would still be there... but the owners wants to limit the salary by reducing the players share... and the players won't agree to it?

I'm 100% on the owners side. It's their business, their risk... the players are employees, exceptional employees no doubt, but not partners. They shouldn't have input on how much of the revenue they receive.

Mess with their signed contacts and I'm on the players side. Mess with future money, etc... whatever the owners want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your statements seems contradictory? If the top salary was 100k or whatever (doesn't matter)... the players would still be there... but the owners wants to limit the salary by reducing the players share... and the players won't agree to it?

There would be players, yes. It's just a question of what players - would elite athletes choose hockey over other sports at a young age, etc.

I'm 100% on the owners side. It's their business, their risk... the players are employees, exceptional employees no doubt, but not partners. They shouldn't have input on how much of the revenue they receive.

Nothing on the ethics of owning a business where the government hands you lots of money because otherwise you'll move. Nothing on the idea that while NHL teams are individually each a business, they're somehow allowed to collectively bargain as a single entity. There is a partnership - the owners steal the money, and then hand a lot of it over to the players, then gouge local governments for new buildings or they threaten to leave.

They shouldn't have input on the percentage of revenue they get, you are absolutely right there. The league shouldn't be allowed to collectively bargain with a player's union. Which of course would lead to much higher salaries overall and unfortunately, a much less balanced NHL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I'm not on the side of the owners or the player (although I tend to side with the players in these CBA negotiations after siding with the owners last time around). I just want to watch NHL hockey. However, extorting money from local, state and federal government bodies to keep a business in a current place through the real or imaginary threat of relocation goes far beyond sports. Large businesses do it all the time, and often receive huge tax credits from the state and municipality to stay and, in some cases, move. Why do you think Panasonic is moving from Secaucus to Newark? They are getting a tax break to move even though its only a few miles away. Every state offers large tax breaks to get corporations to move to their state, which often mean the locality where that company is presently housed must make huge concessions in order to keep the jobs there. The owners run these large corporations, therefore it is logical that they would use the tactics they use in business in running their sports franchises and, frankly, who can blame them since it works (rightly or wrongly) each and every time.

Ultimately, the state or local government has a choice to make regarding what the value of retaining that professional sports franchise really is because they all KNOW, without a doubt, that they will NEVER recover their initial investment in the new arena or stadium during its ~30 year lifespan. Nobody forces the state or city to fund the construction of the arena but, for political and socioeconomic reasons, they choose to do so more often than not.

Collective bargaining is a result of the players unionizing, and probably was something the owners heavily resisted when the NHLPA was first being formed. I don't think you can definitively say that players would be making more money without collective bargaining. Maybe guys like Crosby would, but others like the 3rd and 4th line grinders likely wouldn't. Plus, without collective bargaining, each player could conceivable have a different set of contractual working conditions, which would be a complete nightmare. Moreover, the owners don't steal anything. People like you and I willingly pay thousands of dollars each season to watch the team play, purchase concessions, and buy merchandise. Nobody forces us to do it. If you don't want to pay $ to see the team play, don't go to the games. And if you don't want to pay money to Cablevision to get MSG+ on your TV, then listen to the radio broadcast or go to a bar.

That being said, I hope the players accept this proposal and we finally see hockey for the first time since June.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites