What if the Owners...

[Egil]

Simply took the players current proposal, and changed the length from 6 years to 2 years. Would the players still accept that?

Click to read more...

 

[SENSible1*]

Simply took the players current proposal, and changed the length from 6 years to 2 years. Would the players still accept that?

Of course they wouldn't and neither would the owners.

 

[Egil]

Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.

 

[SENSible1*]

Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.

The owners cannot go through this process again in two years. If they accept this bribe their widely based support will evaporate.

 

[Egil]

I have heard this argument before, but it doesn't make sense to me. The owners are going to LOSE their support by accepting a short term deal to save the season? I would think saving the season would earn them FAR more support than cancelling it....

 

[SENSible1*]

I have heard this argument before, but it doesn't make sense to me. The owners are going to LOSE their support by accepting a short term deal to save the season? I would think saving the season would earn them FAR more support than cancelling it....

Yes, because their support is based on a desire to see the systemic problems addressed.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Why wouldn't the owners do this? They simply need to keep their spending in check for 1 year and get a 24% salary reduction. A 2 year deal was signed before (in 1992), so its not that far out their.

Because that 24% salary reduction is a myth. The majority of players contracts expire at the end of this season. IIRC just over 120 players will have contracts at the end of this season. Serious salary escalation can take place immediately because of the number of players not under contract. The number of holdouts that could take place could cripple the game just as badly as the lockout has and force the owners to spend all that money they just got back.

(BTW... you are aware that the players under contract have already essentially lost 50% of their pay for this season, meaning a 25% loss of salary over this year and next?)

 

[Egil]

Yeah, but players losing 24% of their salary affects Qualifying offers and arbitration. The salaries will go back up, at about the 10% or per year they went up under the current CBA (quite possibly even 15% this offseason). But it certainly isn't an instantaneus thing. And with such a high % of player contracts tied to their previous years salary, or what other signed players are making, the 24% rollback would affect future player earnings. Not enough to make it worth the owners while in a 6 year deal, but over 2? Maybe.

BTW, I'm almost positive the players would NOT agree to their proposal with a 2 year term instead of 6.

 

[SENSible1*]

BTW, I'm almost positive the players would NOT agree to their proposal with a 2 year term instead of 6.

Of course they wouldn't, since they offer was designed to trade 2 years of pain for 4 years of gravy.

 

[TOGLIATTI]

Is this so hard?

I am really getting tired of all this. "HARD CAP!!!!!!!" "GREEDY PLAYERS!!!!" I think this could all be solved if the owners and managers just follow a basic principle that anybody can learn by ready any of multiple economics texts. If you cant afford it, DONT BUY IT!!!!!!!!! New York Rangers anyone?? Here is how much we have to spend; here are the players we can afford. If a team is losing money, it is their own fault. Does it work to lump up a team with huge contract players? Where was Colorado this year? Who in their right mind would send themselves deeper into debt by signing Peter Forsberg (who is injured most of the time, doesn’t consider the NHL his career, and would rather become a clothes model for Swedish Men) to an 11 million dollar deal? Just use some common sense. The Sergei Fedorov deal is a classic example. Carmonos offers this HUGE contract, knowing Detroit will match it, just to bloat the team salary of long time Minor League rival Mike Ilitch. Another example is Detroit. Why on earth did they sign Brett Hull to that kind of contract????? The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

I am really getting tired of all this. "HARD CAP!!!!!!!" "GREEDY PLAYERS!!!!" I think this could all be solved if the owners and managers just follow a basic principle that anybody can learn by ready any of multiple economics texts. If you cant afford it, DONT BUY IT!!!!!!!!! New York Rangers anyone?? Here is how much we have to spend; here are the players we can afford. If a team is losing money, it is their own fault. Does it work to lump up a team with huge contract players? Where was Colorado this year? Who in their right mind would send themselves deeper into debt by signing Peter Forsberg (who is injured most of the time, doesn’t consider the NHL his career, and would rather become a clothes model for Swedish Men) to an 11 million dollar deal? Just use some common sense. The Sergei Fedorov deal is a classic example. Carmonos offers this HUGE contract, knowing Detroit will match it, just to bloat the team salary of long time Minor League rival Mike Ilitch. Another example is Detroit. Why on earth did they sign Brett Hull to that kind of contract????? The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.

this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr

 

[SENSible1*]

this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr

:lol

 

[Pepper]

The owners got themselves into this. Bettman is pushing for a hard cap to protect the owners from themselves.

Exactly and the owners will spend each other to bankcrupty if there's no system which prevents owners from spending too much which escalates the salaries leaguewide so that even the responsible GMs will suffer.

So the league will continue the lockdown as long as players get the point.

 

[Pepper]

this isnt news and the owners know it. however, there has never and will never be a better chance to get their cost certainty so they will stop at nothing to get it.

how sad for the future of teams like EDM, CGY, OTT and VAN.

dr

On the contrary, a new CBA on owners terms will ensure that those mentioned teams can compete each on regular basis without having to fear big teams poaching their stars.

Then again, you already knew it since you have been explained that 1000 times but you were just being sarcastic there.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

Exactly and the owners will spend each other to bankcrupty if there's no system which prevents owners from spending too much which escalates the salaries leaguewide so that even the responsible GMs will suffer.

So the league will continue the lockdown as long as players get the point.

hey, let them spend each other into bankruptcy... why do you care ? OTT was so upside down in debt that their new owner got them for a song and the team is now well set financially.

same for BUF and VAN.

the NHL wont die in the city, just that owner.

dr

 

[Pepper]

hey, let them spend each other into bankruptcy... why do you care ? OTT was so upside down in debt that their new owner got them for a song and the team is now well set financially.

same for BUF and VAN.

the NHL wont die in the city, just that owner.

dr

It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look. Posts like that are the constant reminder why majority of fans see the light and don't support the players.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

On the contrary, a new CBA on owners terms will ensure that those mentioned teams can compete each on regular basis without having to fear big teams poaching their stars.

Then again, you already knew it since you have been explained that 1000 times but you were just being sarcastic there.

pepp ...

i dont see a cap helping CGY and EDM and VAN and OTT. but you were just being sarastic since its been explained to you 1000 times.

dr

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look. Posts like that are the constant reminder why majority of fans see the light and don't support the players.

why do you care if some rich jerk spends himself into bankruptcy ?

dr

 

[YellHockey*]

It should be now obvious to everyone how clueless some of you pro-PA yahoos look.

Pro-PA yahoos?

You're the one who has proven himself a liar.

How come the pro-PA yahoos don't have to lie to get their point across?

 

[me2]

Pro-PA yahoos?

You're the one who has proven himself a liar.

How come the pro-PA yahoos don't have to lie to get their point across?

They've got a point? Where