Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)

[Hank Chinaski]

Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Lockout IV: Still so close, and yet still so far (Moderated: see post #1)

MOD NOTE:

Once again, a reminder that this is a business forum. Posts that in no way contribute to the business aspect of this lockout will be deleted. Repeated posting of this nature will be met with infractions and thread bans.

There's a thread on the NHL talk forum if you wish to focus on the non-business aspects of this lockout.


Link to previous thread (#3): http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1303703

Ok , Continue discussion

 

[The Bob Cole]

Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?

 

[PensFanSince1989]

Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?

The NHLPA variance proposal is a lot more than 25%. Their rule is the lowest year in salary must be at least 25% of the highest year. So, a contract can look like this. 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 10m, 2.5m, 2.5m, 2.5m

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max).

I don't think you actually know what the franchise tag in the NFL actually does. It does not give teams the ability to gain an exception to salary cap rules, but instead allows the team to prevent a player from reaching free agency by paying a very high premium.

 

[The Bob Cole]

I don't think you actually know what the franchise tag in the NFL actually does. It does not give teams the ability to gain an exception to salary cap rules, but instead allows the team to prevent a player from reaching free agency by paying a very high premium.

That wasn't the point, it was to pick out the example of making exceptions on a team for certain players.

Thanks, though.

 

[Riptide]

It also completely nullifies the 5 yr contract length. 12.9% of the current contracts exceed 5 years (6yrs+). And something like 40 of those 89 contracts are 6 yrs exactly.

So by adding a clause that allows X contracts longer than the minimum, all you've done is made the 5 yr rule meaningless as most players do not get contracts longer than that.

Sorry, but it doesn't solve anything from the NHL's point of view.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

That wasn't the point, it was to pick out the example of making exceptions on a team for certain players.

Thanks, though.

The Franchise tag is not an example of an exception though. Its basically the same thing as a team option. A real exception would be like something in the NBA where players can sign for more money with their current team than they can on the open market.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.

Yeah, there are 2 big issues with contract length. Insurance and Cap circumvention. Contract Term limits to 5 years solves both those issues.

 

[mouser]

Sidebar...

Got an idea to bridge some ground between the two on variance. Perhaps you guys can break it down and see if it makes sense.

Clearly the issue of 5% variance is not well received by the players, as superstars will eat up cap hits and the middle of the road players will be squeezed in the process.

That being said, the 5% variance literally effects very few contracts in the league (same being said for the 5-8+ year contracts). Why not create an exception (franchise tag from NFL) where a team can hold 2 (or 3?) "superstar" contracts on their roster at any point. What this means is that there is an exception in contracts for variance for the designated players on the roster. That player can have what the NHLPA calls a "Crosby Contract" with 25% variance (or at least 10-20%) and slightly longer term (10 years max). This means that those few stars who are causing the crunch on the middle of the road players, will no longer have as big of an impact. A player in the $2-5 million range will not have as compressed salaries as GM's try to make their teams cap compliant. This will ease the burden and keep most contracts within the 5% variance, yet open the possibility for creative contracts to accommodate the 'superstars' into payroll.

Thoughts?

If it only affects a small portion of the players with the cap bending contracts what would be the point of implementing a rule with exceptions that allows the cap same bending practice to continue?

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

As for the "who does the 5 year term hurt" argument, IMO it hurts the star players much more than the mid tier guys. The PA is just saying that it will kill the middle class as a PR stunt.

No team is going to pay someone 10M+ a season and kill their depth, let alone 3-5 guys 8M+. This isn't the NBA where 2-3 guys can make you a great team, you need depth to compete in the NHL.

By not being able to circumvent the cap, high end players will have to take much less salary than what they're getting right now. TBH, there isn't enough cap space to fit all these guys on circumvention deals to go around.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

The owners are unreasonable to hold the season up to impose five year contracts. Think about all the little people getting screwed by this greed.

I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Goes both ways: why is the PA so deadset against it if it only affects a small minority of players?
Everything seems to indicate that the NHL wants 5 year limits because they can't get contracts insured for more than that.

I don't know either.
That's a fair argument.

I'll take $200 Million more in exchange for 5 year contracts though

(What I'm guessing Fehr is angling for)

 

[Ron C.]

If owners can't insure contracts over 5 years, I find it hard to criticize them for wanting to cover their investment costs. At this point, I am surprised a middle ground can't be found. A 5% variance in contract years may be a bit much, but the 75% variance the NHLPA has proposed is almost no change at all.

My suggestion:

A 50/50 split of HRR (like most of the other major sports are near). Transition aided by "make-whole" provision contribution of 300M by owners.

10 year term- either side can opt out after 8 years. No one wants to do this again in a few years.

5 year contract maximum. Teams re-signing their own players can go to 7 years. Contract length can be increased to 8 years, but player needs to contribute to the costs of insuring the contract against injury or forced retirement.

A 20% maximum in the dollar values per year. No more 12M to 1M drops over the life of the deal.

Play hockey.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

As for the "who does the 5 year term hurt" argument, IMO it hurts the star players much more than the mid tier guys. The PA is just saying that it will kill the middle class as a PR stunt.

No team is going to pay someone 10M+ a season and kill their depth, let alone 3-5 guys 8M+. This isn't the NBA where 2-3 guys can make you a great team, you need depth to compete in the NHL.

By not being able to circumvent the cap, high end players will have to take much less salary than what they're getting right now. TBH, there isn't enough cap space to fit all these guys on circumvention deals to go around.

If I was the NHL, I'd lower the max salary to 15% of the cap from 20% and then say "There, that helps your middle class, no?"

 

[RedWingsNow*]

If I was the NHL, I'd lower the max salary to 15% of the cap from 20% and then say "There, that helps your middle class, no?"

Sp 3 guys get big money instead of 2.
Not a huge difference

 

[KINGS17]

I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.

Again, the same can be said of the pro-player side. At least 80% of the players are unaffected by the 5-year limit. Why is this such hard point for the NHLPA?

The only answer can be is that a small minority of players still want long term contracts as a way to allow cap circumvention.

I am not buying Fehr's rhetoric on it hurting the "middle class" players.

 

[PensFanSince1989]

If the NHLPA accepts the leagues variance rules, and stops trying to create more avenues for extra $$ outside of the 50/50 split (compliance buyouts, escrow limits...transition issues already addressed by make whole), I can see the league agreeing to 8 year contracts (or at least 6 and 8, or 7 for all). But they better do it fast if they want all $300 million make whole money.

 

[ottawah]

I can't think of a single person, even here on a PRO Owner hfboards, who would have said that 5 vs 8 year contracts is worth canceling the season.

Its far more than that. Monetary issue dealing with limited escrow is huge.

 

[mzappa]

Related to the business side of the lockout;

Why has the NHL not officially cancelled additional games, even though its virtually guaranteed?

Games are officially cancelled until Dec.14th, but there is no possible way players and the NHL business machine can be ready-to-go by next Saturday.

I assumed that local arenas needed more time for booking events, etc.

 

[octopi]

I've suggested it before, but how about allow longer contracts, just limit it to only two allowed per team. Either that, or tie it to salary amounts. 2 contracts any amount up to 8 years term. Any contract under 3 mil/year, up to 8 years term. No more than that.

 

[The Bob Cole]

The Franchise tag is not an example of an exception though. Its basically the same thing as a team option. A real exception would be like something in the NBA where players can sign for more money with their current team than they can on the open market.

The franchise tag can only be applied to one designated player. It was a viable comparison.

NBA one is too.

 

[Falconone]

Contract issues

I have long held that the major sticking points would be/ were the contract issues. And here we are with the most promising progress to date in talks falling apart because of player contracting rights.

If the posts above are to be taken at face value, so that the remaining issues are; length of the CBA, max contract lengths and cap of 5% of contract value from year to year of a contract.

It woould seem to me that it could be solved by a bit of compromise from both parties.

On length of CBA 10 yrs may benefit both parties so NHLPA should concede this point

On a cap of 5% of contract value from year to year, the NHLPA should also concede

But of length of contract limits the NHL owners should agree to an 8 yr max as the NHLPA has offered.


Bettman may believe that 'trust' isn't an issue but for the PA the nature of his initial positions and the figurative stamping of his feet in a fit of pique over the PA offering proposals/changes doesn't help what he calls extremely difficult negotiations.

What I think most observers believed was a situation where the two sides were close to a deal, to have Bettman say it's a "take it or leave it", "everything is off the table now" position just makes it more than frustrating.

I would think that both sides could and should have kept talking. There would have been a deal around the three issues outlined by other posters (summarized above) in some fashion, perhaps not too dissimilar to what I suggest.

For Bettman to offer his 'displeasure' at what the union did in wanting those changes smacks of a pettulance and an arrogance that has been pervasive in this whole sordid affair. This type of behavior on Bettman's part only confirms for the PA that he's not to be trusted.

If he really cares/cared about the fans and 'the game' he would have said that the parties need to continue talking and resolve the differences between themselves as they had been doing and then stepped out of the room.

What I suspect happened, was that in doing what he referred to as 'what you have to do to sell things internally', backfired on him. He may have told the owners that the real guts of their problems could be solved by getting a 10 yr CBA, 5% limits on contract salary from year to year and a 5 yr limit on contract length. When someone (probably Jacobs LOL) questioned if Gary thought they could get a deal with those provisions, Gary said "YES"! When it didn't happen, Bettman looked bad.

Unfortunately, as he's failed to learn, Fehr is his superior in these negotiations and Bettman got caught by the PA wanting to continue to negotiate these matters.

Hence the song and dance show Bettman and Daly put on in the press conference.

It's a shame. Maybe cooler heads will pervail and something will get done.

If not, a "Disclaimer" is next (especially if the owners cancel the season) and despite what Bettman said, there's more than ample evidence (a lot of it has been linked to on this site) which shows clearly where this will lead to in US courts. Most likely not positive for the NHL owners.

Once you get matters such as these out of the area of Labor Law and into Anti Trust law, the likelihood of ownership prevailing in a courtroom is not very good. This isn't my opinion here, it is the opinion of very esteemed lawyers and law professors who have expertise in this specific area of the law. Follow the links posted elsewhere on this site if you want.

And the Anti Trust Laws carry teeth. A trebling of damages for every count. 720 players could make for at least 720 counts. Not where the NHL wants to be or the players for that matter. But in a court room dealing with anti trust damages $$ will suffice and the NHL would have better odds of succes betting on black in Las Vegas.

But hey this is just my opinion, everyone has one.

F1

 

[HockeyShack]

Related to the business side of the lockout;

Why has the NHL not officially cancelled additional games, even though its virtually guaranteed?

Games are officially cancelled until Dec.14th, but there is no possible way players and the NHL business machine can be ready-to-go by next Saturday.

I assumed that local arenas needed more time for booking events, etc.

If no deal by Monday, I bet they cancel them for the rest of December then.

but player needs to contribute to the costs of insuring the contract against injury or forced retirement.

I believe the owners can't purchase insurance, so the whole salary is picked up by the owners. In another thread someone mentioned they can't even insure Crosby (May be why he isn't playing in Europe).