New developments must be iminent (Sakic+Yzerman)

Status
Not open for further replies.

not quite yoda

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
3,690
127
Visit site
I think it is incredibly clear.

The NHLPA KNEW that the NHL whould never accept 49.

The NHL KNEW that the NHLPA would never give in completely and accept 42.5.

The answer to saving the season, if there is one at all, was between 42.5 and 49. Considering that the NHLPA wanted to make a deal now more than the NHL (given the NHLPA's giving in to the CAP), the NHLPA was certainly willing to move down from 49. How far down? I don't know.

The PA should have (and still should today) make their best possible offer (like the NHL claimed to make at 42.5. If the NHLPA's best offer is is 46 then offer 46; if it's 45 then offer 45. And put it all in the League's hand to see if 2.5 to 3.5 million$ is worth making yesterday the darkest day in hockey.

Anyways, I am TOTALLY convinced that there must be SOMETHING going on behind the scenes right now. Gretzky denied himself working on it, fine.

But Yzerman: "I don't know if it's necessarily tonight, tomorrow morning, Friday night or Saturday. I know the season has been cancelled, but it's not too late to uncancel it,"

And Sakic: "Hopefully it will be behind the scenes because every time it goes public, it gets ruined. (...)There's upset people on both sides. We did a lot of damage in the last couple of days. We've got to find a way to get it done ".

There is no way that those two vets who have so much respect throughout the league can just throw those words out there and do nothing about it themselves. They must be working on something; may be not necessarily together but still... Their careers in the NHL are nearly over and they have made them rich. They must have realized that the time has come to give back and (somewhat) give-in further to the League.

Like someone here said earlier today: "there is too much smoke for there not to be fire".
 

LazRNN

Registered User
Dec 17, 2003
5,060
31
This is beginning to remind me of the 2000 Presidential Election or a bad horror movie… it just won’t end…
 

bcrt2000

Registered User
Feb 17, 2005
3,499
3
canucksfan said:
I think the players thought that Bettman would never cancel the season. Yzerman probably is realizing that he's played his last hockey in the NHL.

players were telling people like kypreos minutes up to the 1pm conference that bettman is going to announce an extension, and thats what a lot of players believed

the most worrying thing for me is the players are so out of touch from reality really thinking that the owners would honestly think that 49 million would work for the owners
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,919
795
www.avalanchedb.com
I think the owners might have actually at least looked at the 49 mill


if not simply to make more room for talking if the PA had not had section 7 in the offer..

That sealed the deal, and took it back from being simply about a few million dollars, back to being a big gap again..

:shakehead
 

not quite yoda

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
3,690
127
Visit site
bcrt2000 said:
players were telling people like kypreos minutes up to the 1pm conference that bettman is going to announce an extension, and thats what a lot of players believed

the most worrying thing for me is the players are so out of touch from reality really thinking that the owners would honestly think that 49 million would work for the owners

If 49 would have worked, 49 would have been accepted. But it wasn't; makes sense players?

But anyways, let's move on past this. It is all about finding a solution in the future now.
 

Balej20*

Guest
Drury_Sakic said:
I think the owners might have actually at least looked at the 49 mill


if not simply to make more room for talking if the PA had not had section 7 in the offer..

That sealed the deal, and took it back from being simply about a few million dollars, back to being a big gap again..

:shakehead

I'm sorry guys that i missed it...but is there anyway you can get me the post that explains what "Section 7" was all about? Or maybe just explain it.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,931
11,921
Leafs Home Board
darkboy said:
This is beginning to remind me of the 2000 Presidential Election or a bad horror movie… it just won’t end…
I agree ..

Someone give me a shoutout when they find the Weapons of Mass Destruction ..

Other than Bettman and Goodenow that is ..
 

The Maltais Falcon

Registered User
Jan 9, 2005
1,156
1
Atlanta, GA
Balej20 said:
I'm sorry guys that i missed it...but is there anyway you can get me the post that explains what "Section 7" was all about? Or maybe just explain it.
In their final proposal, the players asked that the cap be linked to revenues, as long as revenues went up. If they went down, the cap was to stay the same.

I guess the players weren't opposed to linkage after all, as long as they could only benefit from it.
 

Drury_Sakic

Registered User
Jul 25, 2003
4,919
795
www.avalanchedb.com
Section 7 Linked the Cap to revenue..

which might have been OK..

BUT..

the revenue the players were tying it to was the revenue from 2004-2005 season pro-rated to full season numbers..

which means...


we all know revenue would be bad this year.... and that would have been the base...


Next season, the revenue would have been better than this year..

The cap would have gone up..


Some speculated as much as 60-65 million would have been how high it would have gone..


Reason enough why the owners passed?

:help:
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,413
1,199
Chicago, IL
Visit site
The Maltais Falcon said:
In their final proposal, the players asked that the cap be linked to revenues, as long as revenues went up. If they went down, the cap was to stay the same.

I guess the players weren't opposed to linkage after all, as long as they could only benefit from it.

Then to add insult to injury, the "index year" would be 2005-2006 - the first full year after the lock-out. If revenue's fall by 25-33% (which is likely IMO), if the league got back to the $2.1B in revenue, the salary cap would be $65M-73.5M, which is right back to where we started.
 

Balej20*

Guest
Drury_Sakic said:
Section 7 Linked the Cap to revenue..

which might have been OK..

BUT..

the revenue the players were tying it to was the revenue from 2004-2005 season pro-rated to full season numbers..

which means...


we all know revenue would be bad this year.... and that would have been the base...


Next season, the revenue would have been better than this year..

The cap would have gone up..


Some speculated as much as 60-65 million would have been how high it would have gone..


Reason enough why the owners passed?

:help:


wow, what a joke...and this was their final offer...the 49 million "cap"?
 

mudcrutch79

Registered User
Jul 5, 2003
3,903
0
The Big Smoke
www.mc79hockey.com
Drury_Sakic said:
the revenue the players were tying it to was the revenue from 2004-2005 season pro-rated to full season numbers..

which means...

we all know revenue would be bad this year.... and that would have been the base...

The NHLPA deal points said:
Dollar levels for tax rates, payroll minimums & maximums for subsequent years either constant or increased by % change in greater of either hockey related revenues or only the gate receipts and broadcasting segments of hockey related revenues from the 2005-06 base year.

This board should start banning people who misstate factual information.
 

Beukeboom Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
15,413
1,199
Chicago, IL
Visit site
Balej20 said:
wow, what a joke...and this was their final offer...the 49 million "cap"?

That's why many posters were pissed at the media. They never even mentioned this "minor detail" and made is sound like the sides were only $6.5M dollars apart.
 

EdBelfour20

Registered User
Jan 19, 2004
863
14
Forget to fully quote Sakic?

""I think this year is finished, but it would be best for everybody if we keep negotiating."
 

SuperDave21

Hockey Paradise
Jul 30, 2004
1,490
0
Scottsdale, AZ
I think you're right about the players being out of touch with reality. They really didn't think that Gary would cancel the season. A good friend of mine who works in the locker room for the Coyotes was talking to Mike Comrie a day before the press conference and Comrie told him that he was confident that they would have a deal done for sure. I guess he was wrong. So it seems that the players were more misguided that we thought.
 

kerrly

Registered User
May 16, 2004
811
1
Regina
mudcrutch79 said:
This board should start banning people who misstate factual information.

Who cares whether he stated the year wrong. The 2005-06 season will work as the base year. How does that make it any better. The leagues revenues will drop next year, which is not in doubt, and nobody knows how much for sure. It has been estimated by some people it could go down 10% all the way to 50%. Absolutely ridiculous clause and it killed the deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->