A well thought out and insightful post by a player who really seems to get it. No one really 'wins' these things. Nice to see.
Alzner > Barch
For a Few Dollars More (CBA & Lockout Discussion)- Part VI
- Thread starter mouser
- Start date
- Status
A well thought out and insightful post by a player who really seems to get it. No one really 'wins' these things. Nice to see.
Alzner > Barch
Exactly, hopefully this line of thinking prevails in this debate and we can all end the insanity and get back to hockey.
Marc the Habs Fan
Moderator
@RenLavoieRDS: It was an official NHL CBA meeting today. NHL and NHLPA plan to talk Saturday. No meeting plan yet.
Quiet meetings are good.
Maybe one side reached out with a proposal?
Quiet meetings are good.
Maybe one side reached out with a proposal?
There will never be 30 profitable teams.
Even if they came up with a "fool-proof" CBA, some owner would still be foolish enough to screw it up.
Beyond that, someone else would come in and overpay for a franchise (ie: beyond the actual income-earning capacity of the business) and then generate losses with heavy financing costs.
Incidentally, wasn't the last CBA supposed to make every franchise profitable? What happened there?
You mean like the meeting they had today that nobody heard about
But I doubt there was a new proposal by either today
@RenLavoieRDS: NHL and NHLPA met for 90 minutes this morning and another 45 minutes in the afternoon.
From Adrian dater.
Based on my talks with NHL people, this is the kind of offer that would settle the lockout from player side:
Player percentages of 54 (maybe 53) in first year, then sliding down to 50-50 by year three or four. My sources also indicate NHL would not be averse to doing a 10-year deal that keeps it a 50-50 split in years 3-10.
Based on my talks with NHL people, this is the kind of offer that would settle the lockout from player side:
Player percentages of 54 (maybe 53) in first year, then sliding down to 50-50 by year three or four. My sources also indicate NHL would not be averse to doing a 10-year deal that keeps it a 50-50 split in years 3-10.
@TheFourthPeriod: Bettman, Daly and the Fehr bros will be in talks all weekend (either phone or in person) before setting up official/formal talks.
Pepper
Registered User
- Aug 30, 2004
- 14,695
- 271
My revised CBA proposal:
8 years. Expiring September 15th, 2020.
No definition change in hockey related revenues (HRR) from the previous CBA.
2012-2013: 57%-43% in favor of players.
2013-2014: 55%-45% in favor of players.
2014-2015: 53%-47% in favor of players.
2015-2016: 52%-48% in favor of players.
2016-2017: 51%-49% in favor of players.
2017-2018 to 2019-2020: 50%-50%
Salary Cap Ceiling: A team may pass the salary cap ceiling by 10% in the summer months (July 1st to September 15th) with no penalty.
From 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, a team may pass the salary cap ceiling by 15% and must pay a luxury tax equivalent to 1$ per every 1$ over. That money will go into the new revenue sharing program.
Salary Cap Floor: From 2012-2013 to 2016-2017, 50% of salary cap ceiling.
From 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, 65% of salary cap ceiling.
Contracts:
- All NHL contracts remain guaranteed.
- Term limit of 7 years in any non entry-level contract.
- NHL Entry-Level contracts will consist of 4 years with a maximum of $1M per season. (excluding bonuses)
- Each year on any NHL contracts will have the same money figure. (i.e If a player signs a 5 years, $35M contract, he will receive $7M in every season. (excluding bonuses)
Unrestricted Free-Agency:
A player can become a UFA if he adheres to one of the following criteria.
A) Has played a minimum of 7 seasons in the NHL.
B) Is aged of 28 years or older by July 1st of any year.
Revenue Sharing:
The top 10 earning teams will have to give the bottom 10 earning teams a combine $175M per season.
The bottom 5 teams will each receive 20% of the luxury tax from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020.
@TheFourthPeriod: According to source, today's talks touched on "wide-range of issues" and over the weekend they'll touch on just about the entire situation.
You mean like the meeting they had today that nobody heard about
But I doubt there was a new proposal by either today
Now we know that they met today you'd think that the people who found out would know if they proposed any offers as it's a pretty big thing. I hope they can have good discussions and get a deal done next week.
That was certainly the goal.
Apparently, this CBA is the first business plan ever that hasn't worked out exactly as planned/envisioned and has run into kinks, obstacles and economic circumstances over the course of time since its inception, thus necessitating changes to that plan.
I would love a ten year deal. But it has to fix the issues.
meaning players get 50/50 for most of the deal, owners go higher on RS, contracts get limited(say 10 years) ELCs bumped to 4 years etc.
NHL left glaring holes.
No limit on contracts and front loading them caused this mess.
Also, in 2005, 57% was acceptable. Not anymore.
agreed.For the most part it definitely improved the league and for the players they're making more than ever(although they'll make it sound like they've been suffering after taking that cut last time).
The league is healthier and is CLOSE to being very stable, but tweaks like RS and a cut to the players percentage will make it very stable and all parties will become very rich. But when you get the players stubborn on percentage(which is short-sighted IMO considering how much they'd make anyway long-term) and the owners so far stubborn on RS it's tough to get a deal done.
cheswick
Non-registered User
50% salary floor compared to a cap would never work. What mechanism would be in place to maintain the set % going to salary? Currently the mid point is set at the 57% with the floor and cap $8 million each direction. This tight band allows small percentage of escrow amounts to be kept to ensure at years end only 57% is paid to salaries.
You would still need to set a midpoint at 62 in order to actually reach the set percentage. To have it that both the floor and ceiling are equidistance from teh mid plus the floor would be half the ceiling the cap would be something like 82 and the floor 41. A dicrepency of $40 million. The amount of escrow having to be taken out would be huge in order to work for such a system. If every team spent to the cap there would be a $600 million over payment to the players. Like 25% of their salaries would be going to escrow.
Bubba Thudd
is getting banned
Whooooop there it is!
Make it so.
If the NHL & NHLPA could work it so that it comes across as, "We talked it through, worked out details, together, as a partnership. It wasn't really based off of either side's proposal", both sides could come out of it without egg on their faces. Neither side would be the "winner" or the "loser". And, most importantly, GAME ON!
- Status
