If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   NHL player$ and owner$ not $peaking the $ame language   (cbc.ca) divider line 127
    More: Followup, NHLPA, NHL, Donald Fehr, Eric Staal, Jarome Iginla, NHL players, Gary Bettman, Sidney Crosby  
•       •       •

1062 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Oct 2012 at 11:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-19 07:34:57 PM

Resolute: soopey- pease don't be disingenuous. The owners have never said "you take 43%, or else". In fact, their last offer was "you take 50%, and we'll squeeze the entire season in.


I'm not, but from what we heard of the first offers the owners were. It was 47% with changes to how to calculate HHR, and no protections for players what so ever. The "make whole" mechanism and cap circumvention proposal are allegedly a new development, and even then it seems that the players are paying for it themselves.
 
2012-10-19 07:44:52 PM

desertgeek: but they shouldn't be bailed out from their own stupidity of signing players to deals they can't afford.


This is a silly talking point. The players get the exact same percentage of revenue every year, regardless of what the numbers on the contracts say. If every team colluded (which is what you seem to be suggesting) to stay at the cap floor and keep the numbers on the contract down, the players would still get exactly the same amount of money as they get now.

Why? Because the player's share of revenue is exactly 57%, no matter what. With each paycheck, a portion is set aside towards the escrow fund. At the end of the season, if the value on the contracts is above 57%, a portion of that escrow fund goes back to the league. With most teams spending over the midpoint, that's been the case recently. If the total of the money paid to players comes in under 57%, the owners have to make up the difference.

The contract amounts have never been anything other than a marker for the proportion of the total player share of HRR. If every team spent to the cap, the players would get the exact same amount of money as if every team spent to the floor. Individual contracts are irrelevant to what they can and can't afford.

It's also important to note that the GMs are operating in a competitive environment- they fight to give the best contracts they can to players, so as to attract talent. If they collaborate during that time to try and make sure they act more reasonably and don't go insane, that's collaboration, and that's very much against the CBA. CBA negotiations are the only time that owners can work together to create a system that reins in excesses. Which is, uh, exactly what they're trying to do.

And in case you didn't notice, Gary Bettman is busy wedging a boot in the asses of teams that signed the most ridiculous cap busting contracts in the NHL's current offer. If a player on a contract over whatever the limit winds up being (5 in the current proposal, probably aiming for 7 after the NHLPA decides to negotiate) retires early, the team that originally signed the contract is stuck with the full cap hit for the life of the contract. Which could possibly leave the Flyers with Weber's full cap hit sometime in the future, and would dick the Rangers over if Gomez retires soon.
 
2012-10-19 07:47:12 PM

soopey: cptjeff: *Yawn*

I'm not a troll,

Right. Answer the question.


Here's a good answer, though I'm sure you'll just pretend to have never seen it.


Resolute: Yeah, I realize I interjected into your dispute with CptJeff. However, the "they got everything they wanted" line is as much bullshiat as it is irrelevant. The owners wanted a system that controlled salaries, and they did. But they also wanted a league where all teams are, if not profitable, are at least breaking even. That has not happened, and one of the primary reasons is that costs are still too high. This also ties into the issue of revenue sharing and it being an "owner vs. owner problem". It isn't. Revenue sharing itself is, but it is not being argued anywhere that the league's teams collectively are not profitable enough to expand revenue sharing by a huge degree without cutting player costs.

So no, the NHL did not get everything it wanted in 2005. It got a much improved situation, yes, but it is foolish to think or suggest that the league should not have the right to push for changes that improve their situation this time around. The players, of course, could have pushed for increased salaries themselves, but at least they realized that wasn't going to get a deal done.


Incidentally, Damien Cox wrote a good article (did I just say that?) about how the NHLPA probably screwed itself by allowing the union's radicals to stab Paul Kelly in the back and instill Don Fehr.

/As if I didn't need more reasons to hate Matt Stajan

 
2012-10-19 07:48:40 PM

cptjeff: This is a silly talking point


Please sir, I await your enlightening response to the following query:

Would you kindly name one thing the owners wanted that they did not get in the 2005 CBA?
 
2012-10-19 07:49:48 PM
Damn, should have underlined your.
 
2012-10-19 07:50:49 PM
img.badposts.org
Hockey's days are numbered.
 
2012-10-19 07:51:03 PM

soopey: Resolute: soopey- pease don't be disingenuous. The owners have never said "you take 43%, or else". In fact, their last offer was "you take 50%, and we'll squeeze the entire season in.

I'm not, but from what we heard of the first offers the owners were. It was 47% with changes to how to calculate HHR, and no protections for players what so ever. The "make whole" mechanism and cap circumvention proposal are allegedly a new development, and even then it seems that the players are paying for it themselves.


Yes, the first offer was for 43%, as HRR is currently defined. But it was never an "or else" offer. And yes, it was a bad offer, but a calculated one I think. I said in the thread of a couple days ago that that offer set up everything leading to the NHL's offer on Tuesday. By starting so low (as anyone would in negotiations), it gave the NHL the ability to come up to 50-50 and get the other side to see it as a good deal relative to first offers. And it worked. The narrative we are getting from the union is "our proposals now reach 50-50". Those proposals don't get there fast enough nor are they guaranteed to do so ever, but at least the language is coming clearer, and it is coalescing around the owners' viewpoint.

And yes, the "make whole" provisions are basically the players paying later for their contracts now. But it does change the game. The owners are talking about guaranteeing, after a fashion, the players' existing contracts. That suggests to me that we will see this in the final deal - in a more realistic form.
 
2012-10-19 07:55:34 PM

Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.


Aside from the fact that that table doesn't even attempt to tell the reader what it is measuring - I assume it relates to national television viewership in the US somehow - it does not show that hockey's days are numbered.

For one, I wonder if that chart includes regional television coverage. And for two, hockey is less reliant on Americacentric thinking than anything else on that list. The truth is, hockey is a niche sport in the US outside of the northeast. There's no reason why that should worry anybody. Especially when it is so big in so many other regions.
 
2012-10-19 07:56:35 PM
I'm all for both sides making money. But this is farking ridiculous. They lost a season and are in danger of losing another. Does anyone other than die-hard fans (myself included) consider them a "major" sport anymore?

/still have NHL package
//watching past seasons to get my fix
///farging icehole owners and players
////obligatory slashies
 
2012-10-19 08:06:58 PM
Read the Damien Cox story. I feel dirty now..

Anyway. It's an interesting take. I don't know how well it would have ended up with Kelly still in place. I think some of the more hardline players that went through the last round would have resented the relationship and canned Kelly during the middle of negotiations for seemingly being too close to the owners. Short sighted, yes, but I think it would have been inevitable and ended up for worse. The coupe without seeking input from the majority of the other players was just flat out assassination. Kelly had some shady dealings about himself that were not to be overlooked. Unsubstantiated rumors were that he was to expand his power beyond what he was hired to do. Kelly didn't last too long when he was named to College Hockey Inc. either. Rumors floated around there that he approached some athletic directors about expanding College Hockey Inc's role in administrating Div 1 NCAA hockey.
 
2012-10-19 08:33:06 PM

soopey: Damn, should have underlined your.


Hey stupid, why does it matter if I type it out or someone else types it out? You were provided with the information. You were shown to be quite wrong. So either admit you were wrong and revise your position, or shut the hell up.

Of course, you're using Republican Logic™ at this point, so I don't expect you to do anything more than the online equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", and continue to spout the same shiat you've been spouting regardless of how many people and sources show it to be completely wrong.
 
2012-10-19 08:37:39 PM
Answer the question and stop dancing around it.
 
2012-10-19 09:20:54 PM
FWIW: NHL Network is airing a CHL game right now.
 
2012-10-19 09:32:40 PM

soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.


It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?
 
2012-10-19 09:39:55 PM

cptjeff: soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.

It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?


Because you brought it up the other day, refused to answer then, and are now copping out on another persons work?
 
2012-10-19 09:40:05 PM
cptjeff: Let me respond to this, bit by bit

This is a silly talking point. The players get the exact same percentage of revenue every year, regardless of what the numbers on the contracts say. If every team colluded (which is what you seem to be suggesting) to stay at the cap floor and keep the numbers on the contract down, the players would still get exactly the same amount of money as they get now.

Where the fark do you get the idea that I'm suggesting that teams colluded? Seriously? Collusion involves paying players LESS to lower the market value of other players. If collusion was going on, would Suter and Parise have gotten $98 million each this summer? I think not.

What is going on in the case of some owners, such as the guy who will be paying those 2 guys; is negotiating in bad faith. The Wild owner agreed to those deals expecting full well that he wouldn't have to pay every single dollar of those deals. Would you like it if you signed a deal to work for a company which pays you X number of dollars per year only to have the CEO of that company say before you even begin working there "unless you all take 15% pay cuts, you can't work anymore?" I don't think so.

If an owner signs off on a contract, he should be bound to fulfill his obligations under that deal unless the player does something that violates the terms of said contract. That's what the players are demanding, essentially. The players have done nothing to warrant giving up any of their future salaries.

Why? Because the player's share of revenue is exactly 57%, no matter what. With each paycheck, a portion is set aside towards the escrow fund. At the end of the season, if the value on the contracts is above 57%, a portion of that escrow fund goes back to the league. With most teams spending over the midpoint, that's been the case recently. If the total of the money paid to players comes in under 57%, the owners have to make up the difference.

And if you ask the players, they'll tell you that escrow sucks because it's basically a gamble. If their share of revenue (including what's paid to escrow) ends up at 56%, they get paid. But if their share ends up at 58%, they lose money.

The contract amounts have never been anything other than a marker for the proportion of the total player share of HRR. If every team spent to the cap, the players would get the exact same amount of money as if every team spent to the floor. Individual contracts are irrelevant to what they can and can't afford.

Technically, this is incorrect. Every player's cap hit is determined by the average salary for the duration of the contract. That's why you see 31 year old players signing 12 yr, $96 million deals ($8 million to the cap) over 6 yr, $66 million deals ($11 million cap hit). They'll probably never play the last 5 years of that deal and under the CBA, the team wouldn't have that go against the cap those 5 years (except for players above age 35).

It's also important to note that the GMs are operating in a competitive environment- they fight to give the best contracts they can to players, so as to attract talent. If they collaborate during that time to try and make sure they act more reasonably and don't go insane, that's collaboration, and that's very much against the CBA. CBA negotiations are the only time that owners can work together to create a system that reins in excesses. Which is, uh, exactly what they're trying to do.

And in case you didn't notice, Gary Bettman is busy wedging a boot in the asses of teams that signed the most ridiculous cap busting contracts in the NHL's current offer. If a player on a contract over whatever the limit winds up being (5 in the current proposal, probably aiming for 7 after the NHLPA decides to negotiate) retires early, the team that originally signed the contract is stuck with the full cap hit for the life of the contract. Which could possibly leave the Flyers with Weber's full cap hit sometime in the future, and would dick the Rangers over if Gomez retires soon.


And no one is against that. Nobody likes those 10, 12, 13 year deals that guys like Hossa, Kovy and most recently Suter and Parise got. We all know that they're not likely to be playing at age 38 or 40 (because not everyone can be Ray Whitney).

So I and most people on here, it seems; support limiting contracts to 7 or 8 years, support making teams pay for signing those contracts by keeping the cap hit there (though I'd need to see where the Flyers would get stuck with Weber's cap hit just for signing their offer sheet).

What I'm saying to the owners is this: you signed off on paying those players that much money. You should pay them every dollar you agreed to.

And to the players, I say this: You should get paid every dollar, but you need to come up with a way that lets you get paid in full without doing damage to your team's cap.

So I suggest:

- All yearly salaries on existing contracts are cut 10-15%
- Cap hits are adjusted accordingly
- That percentage of money cut is placed into deferred payments that are paid to the player no later than 5 years from the end of his playing career with interest.
- How payments are made (lump sum, installments, etc.) would be negotiated between each player and their team
- If the player is moved from his current team (trade, released, etc.), the team would still be responsible for paying the deferred payment

That would get the job done and would guarantee players the full value of their contracts, while giving them a limited salary after their career ends.
 
2012-10-19 09:53:40 PM

soopey: Read the Damien Cox story. I feel dirty now..


You should, because as usual Cox is leaving out some key facts and playing fancy word games. The most glaring of course is omiting that Kelly was never elected head of the PA, he just suddenly became the Chairman when Goodenow stepped down. The investigation that lead to his stepping aside had a lot more to do with whether or not PA rules and procedures had been violated than being chummy with ownership(although that likely didn't help). I admit it's got some interesting observations, but most of his conclusions are based on wishful thinking.
 
2012-10-19 10:26:15 PM
People are taking something Damien Cox wrote seriously? Really?

On Thursday, he walked into a significant meeting with several NHL owners 90 minutes late, plopped down two single sheets of paper, each with a different skeleton proposal to the owners that didn't include any ideas on systemic issues, then verbally delivered a third proposal with no accompanying paperwork. For all three proposals, he acknowledged to the owners he hadn't actually "run the numbers."

The meeting was postponed earlier in the day. How could Fehr be late if the meeting was postponed?

What does the number of pages have to do with anything? Fehr acknowledged that the recent proposals only involved the economic aspects, that is to say, the revenue split. All the rest of the stuff (UFA age, ELC length, capping term, etc.) are secondary issues that could be solved pretty quickly.

Fehr said he didn't run the numbers on the third proposal, not all three.

That's not to say there aren't legitimate issues with the Kelly's dismissal but Cox is easily one of the last people fans should expect to get actual news from.
 
2012-10-19 10:40:35 PM

Someothermonkey:
That's not to say there aren't legitimate issues with the Kelly's dismissal but Cox is easily one of the last people fans should expect to get actual news from.


Comparing Fehr to Eagleson is another hilariously stupid point. Eagleson never let the players know what was going on while Fehr has not only been constantly talking to the players, he's made sure they are allowed to sit in during negotiations. Back in '04 when Goodenow dropped the 24% rollback bomb a lot of players weren't even aware he had even considered it. There are reasons to dislike Fehr, but this has easily been the most open CBA negotiations ever seen by NHLPA members.
 
2012-10-20 01:07:06 AM

Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.


PBA?

The professional bullriders association?



FAAAAKE!
 
2012-10-20 01:37:11 AM

mikaloyd: Foxxinnia: [img.badposts.org image 700x600]
Hockey's days are numbered.

PBA?

The professional bullriders association?



FAAAAKE!


Actually, it's bowling.
 
2012-10-20 01:58:55 AM
i'd rather watch womens curling.

/boner

who cares about the NHL any more?
 
2012-10-20 02:09:51 AM

desertgeek: Where the fark do you get the idea that I'm suggesting that teams colluded? Seriously?


I've seen people more or less suggest that the owners should just decide to pay the players less. That's effectively suggesting that they SHOULD collude.

desertgeek: Every player's cap hit is determined by


I'm not talking about cap hit. I'm talking about what they actually get paid. Each year, the players get exactly 57% of revenue, and the salary listed on their contract is modified through escrow to achieve that result.


desertgeek: And if you ask the players, they'll tell you that escrow sucks because it's basically a gamble. If their share of revenue (including what's paid to escrow) ends up at 56%, they get paid. But if their share ends up at 58%, they lose money.


Yeah. And? The salaries are linked to HRR. That's what cost certainty is, and it's the reason we lost the 2004-2005 season. There is no way in hell that that the owners will let the players separate salaries from revenue, as every NHLPA has proposed.

desertgeek: is negotiating in bad faith.


No, it's negotiating with an eye towards the market conditions. Every team, player, and agent knew that a 50-50 split of HRR, which was possibly going to be modified, would be the likely result of these CBA talks. If any agent didn't know that, or didn't tell their client, they should be fired for gross incompetence. That the owners were unhappy with the CBA and were looking for modifications surprised absolutely no one- it was public information. You can't accuse me of bad faith negotiation when I try to sell you a house that you can plainly see is falling apart when you discover on buying it that it needs significant repairs.

desertgeek: he should be bound to fulfill his obligations under that deal


The terms of the deal (aka a Standard Player Contract) include a provision saying that the contract is set forth under the NHL CBA and terms may be modified under a future agreement. Owners are absolutely bound to fulfill their obligations under a deal, but what those obligations are can be changed by a new CBA.

desertgeek: What I'm saying to the owners is this: you signed off on paying those players that much money. You should pay them every dollar you agreed to.


That's never been the case before, why should it be now? Since the salary cap era began, the actual face value of the contract has been illusory. That's not what they're actually paid. The players know that, the owners know that. Contracts are dependent on the CBA- again, all parties knew this, they can suck it up.

It also matters that they agreed to a contract with a base dollar amount modified by a revenue split defined by the CBA. The idea that they sign a contract for, say, 4 million, and that that amount of money is fixed is a simplistic fantasy.
 
2012-10-20 02:15:56 AM

soopey: cptjeff: soopey: Answer the question and stop dancing around it.

It's been answered. Why would I need to answer it again?

Because you brought it up the other day, refused to answer then, and are now copping out on another persons work?


Well, I did give a quick answer then, and in this thread, I directed you to a post that directly addressed your concerns. This is a public discussion board, not a one on one argument. You got the information and were shown to be wrong. I didn't, and still don't, see the need to go any further.

Besides which, it's still an utterly irrelevant point. The current CBA negotiation will be affected by the current market conditions, not who did or didn't 'win' last time. Life doesn't work that way, we're not taking turns on the playground swings here.
 
2012-10-20 03:37:00 AM
I think the NHL is just negotiating from the position of the poorest team. The real problem, in my mind, is the over-expansion - because both players and owners lose if they fold any teams. The Southern market franchises would be worth even less. The other major problem is the big owners not being held in check to run their businesses in a way that doesn't crush the small ones. Phoenix can't commit 200 million to two guys.
They can't fold teams because that devalues other teams. They can't move to Canada because it means the US market isn't there, still devaluing teams.

Weren't they close to a big national NBC deal? Didn't the guy running the Sharks have an offer on the table to finally buy Phoenix? The truth is the bottom 4 or 6 teams need to fold, move, or do something - but the union will never tolerate lower membership and Bettman won't concede that he could never deliver the huge US market. I see this negotiation as Bettman's last stand to deliver on viable sports business across the USA. The longer this goes, the more of the last 7 years of momentum stops, and the sooner Bettman makes a deal and concedes the salaries already signed, the more uphill is the battle for the smaller markets.

The NHL approves or rejects every contract, and they should have structured in the survival of the smaller markets years ago. 
Hockey or not this year, I think this negotiation will change the face of the game over the next 10 years for better or worse.
 
2012-10-20 08:06:34 AM

Resolute: For one, I wonder if that chart includes regional television coverage. And for two, hockey is less reliant on Americacentric thinking than anything else on that list. The truth is, hockey is a niche sport in the US outside of the northeast. There's no reason why that should worry anybody. Especially when it is so big in so many other regions.


Glad we agree. Now convince that windowlicker Betteman of that whole "non-Americacentric" part, before he expands to 32 teams just so he can get teams in Houston & San Antonio.
 
2012-10-20 10:01:15 AM
Why does this spring to mind as I read the article?
 
Displayed 27 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report