So are all the player haters in here done with the players on their teams and only going to cheer on their owners and Gary, or is all the I hate the players talk all childish and bull **** and just an act ?
That would require average league salary to be less than the salary cap midpoint. That doesn't happen.
I'll be the first to admit I'm not Bob Goodenow's best fan, but at least the guy knew how to count. Right now, Fehr and the NHLPA are making me angry. And it's not blind fanboyism.
I mean, I see a lot of posts going "Oh, you guys are just eating the league's PR!". No, we are not. We know this league. We are currently on an hockey forum, during hockey stoppage, discussing the negociation of a new CBA. Most of us try to read everything that's said about the situation. Not only by the league, or the NHLPA, but mostly by neutral sources, the ones we know we can trust. You're in one of the biggest lumps of Hockey history knowledge of the internets. So cut that crap.
Anyhow, today those trusted sources came out with pretty much the same data. The 3 offerings by the NHLPA were unacceptable. The first 2 are unviable economically, and based on the very shaky premises of constant growth in a struggling economy - something any company that wants to survive needs to avoid doing. The 3rd is literally mathematically impossible - and "running the numbers" would have quickly made that apparent.
On the other side, the League went and grabbed the offer they wrote, tossed it on the internet and went "you go at it fans". And what most people thought is that it was a very fair offer. Both the fans and media. Yeah, the NHL hired a PR master. And that PR master is probably behind the whole "show the fans what you're offering" thing. But it wouldn't have worked if the offer wasn't fair. When you have some of the most talented sport journalists and their crew studying the offer in every angle and coming to the conclusion that it's a good offer that should litterally give a big spark to start negociations again on very solid middle ground, yeah, you're going to root for that side a bit, because you see some good will.
And then when the other side comes and tosses 3 badly thought out offers, you're going to see some bad will.
No one is going to go out and buy a big #1 handfoam with Bettman written on it. We still hate the guy. Look at my city of origin if you need more cred. But at least today we got confirmation that the League and the owners were trying harder than the PA to solve this. Moreover, we also got confirmation that the PA is not trying very hard at all at solving this - and this to us reeks of 2004-2005. We know what it leads to.
So what I see is not love for the league, but hate for the PA.
Damn, I miss Hockey. Yesterday, I had hope. This morning, I had hope. Now I'm back from work, I read most of the thread, and I lost hope. The players need to start understanding the situation and rein in Fehr. This can't keep happening to our game.
When?
It doesn't matter what they THOUGHT. The reality of their contracts was right there in writing, you can't pin that on the owners.
If they don't understand the terms and conditions of the contracts they're signing, why the hell is that the owners fault? That's the responsibility of the player and if he's stupid enough to sign a contract that he doesn't understand then it's only himself he has to blame. Besides, I'm pretty sure that's why these guys have agents - to help them understand all of the business jargon that they aren't well versed in.
Any chance the NHL offers 54% or 53% than 50/50 after that in a next proposal?
there have been three hockey lockouts since the last MLB lockout, he knows what hes doing
No...if salaries are locked in at the face value of the contracts and revenue continues increasing then the % is going down. But that would require some de-linkage (because it would mean guaranteeing the amount the players are to receive). The question becomes how do you decide what the cap is going to be? If you set a fixed cap (de-linked from revenue) then the only space you have is by players retiring or the teams trading them...unless you get the extra space by linking cap to revenue and assuming that revenue increase - this brings you to the problem re what happens if revenue decreases and you end up with a cap below the "frozen in" payroll that comes from guaranteeing the face value of the contracts.
I actually don't mind a temporary de-linkage to guarantee the face value of the contracts because I think that revenue will continue to increase - however, you have to figure out what to do about the cap...and I think the players have to understand they can't generously agree to also get raises to go along with the guaranteed face value.
Any chance the NHL offers 54% or 53% than 50/50 after that in a next proposal?
I don't think players should be guaranteed existing contracts at face value. I think the concept of paying off existing contracts should be addressed but I do think that escrow should be held in the event that revenues fall. This is the system they've always been paid under. So long as revenues rise, current contracts are bad back at face value.
You bring up a good point about the cap though. I hadn't thought about that but I guess you have to keep the cap the same but it will have its drawbacks for both players and teams but if that's the stipulation that must be met for the players than that's one of the repercussions of it. I'd imagine that players who are set to hit UFA in the next couple of years may be hit the hardest with a cap freeze because it means there isn't any revenue growth that gets added to the player's pot.
They can't afford to move any further from that offer in terms of HRR.
I hope the nhl doesn't sit on this , I hope they continue to be aggressive and make new proposals
After an offer is made, the best thing would be to negotiate and discuss, not dismiss and walk away 10 minutes later.
I never said the negotiations lasted 10 minutes.
The players indicated once the details of their proposals were done, there was only 10 minutes of discussion before the NHL left. Not my words and likely exaggeration, but probably closer to the truth.
Woah!
Allan Walsh @walsha
If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.
Hell of a post.
Think about it - if you guarantee face value from last CBA, it's essentially playing under the old CBA. Basically it will be a 57/43 split until the bulk value of all existing contracts is expended. So cap space is essentially coming from money resulting from UFA's and retired players every year. Players becoming UFA's represent the end of the 'old-CBA' contracts so you can think of that money being absorbed into the new CBA.
Well I looked up on capgeek and it looks like $400M is coming off the books in UFA's each of the next two years, then $200M the next two after that, then $80M. So it would take $1.3B of the current $1.8B in player salaries off in around 4 years, assuming that once a guy goes UFA his share of that $1.8B is fully removed. After that the number of UFA's on capgeek gets really small.
Assuming 5% growth and the proposed 12.28% 'off the books', $400M would be off the books in each of the first two years. After that, the 12.28% is taking off too much money compared to the contracts being eliminate.
Keep in mind that after four years, you'd still be paying $500M of 'old' salaries league-wide.
In effect the NHLPA's 50/50 deal is the old CBA for a minimum of FOUR YEARS. Not to mention that cap space only comes from UFA's but there should be more players + UFA's fighting for 87% of the UFA dollars that come off the books each year.
Woah!
Allan Walsh @walsha
If Bettman put the NHLPA proposals today before ALL NHL owners for a vote, we would be heading to training camps tomorrow.
The players' salaries have increased dramatically, but costs of travel, food, etc. have also gone up and owners aren't making money. Even if the players coughed up 13% from their share of the pie they would still be making way, way more than they were in 2005. And the NHL is honouring all existing contracts. What's not to like?
Here are the numbers for the players' share under the 3rd proposal assuming a 5% growth rate:
12-13: 57% of $3.2 billion
13-14: 55% of $3.36 billion
14-15: 53% of $3.53 billion
15-16: 52% of $3.71 billion
16-17: 51% of $3.9 billion
17-18: 51% of $4.09 billion
That's an effective rate of 53% over the life of a 6 year CBA.
No you simply implied it.