Optimistic there won't be a NHL labor stoppage

[LadyStanley]

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2011/08/29/18615511.html?cid=rsssportsslam! hockey

The 2011-12 season is the last under the NHL's current contract but Boston Bruins forward Daniel Paille, the team's NHLPA rep, expects a deal will get done and a lockout won't be repeated.

Click to read more...

 

[Killion]

Oui'. Monsieur Paille would know this as he what?. Discusses such matters with Jeremy Jacobs on a faux cedar strip & Nova Scotian Pine Lobster Boat while fishing for Great Whites off of Cape Hatteras?.

 

[Noldo]

Oui'. Monsieur Paille would know this as he what?. Discusses such matters with Jeremy Jacobs on a faux cedar strip & Nova Scotian Pine Lobster Boat while fishing for Great Whites off of Cape Hatteras?.

Considering that Paille is NHLPA representative of his team we should at least hope that he has rather informed opionon on how the players currently see the CBA and what should be crucial issues during the negotiations.

Having said that, unless Paille is extremely naive, if the players are not gearing for labour stoppage, they are adamant with the existence of cap and are not going to try to have it removed for it should be clear to all that the owners are not going to give up their cost certainty without fight. Although IMO the players are wise if they decide that getting rid of cap is not worth the risk (at least one, probably multiple lost seasons) and the right choice would be to approach the negotiations with "improve the current arrangement" -mentality, most likely targetting revenue sharing (more teams able to spent = better off high profile players are)

 

[Dado]

It doesn't seem to me that the fight this time is between players and owners, it's between super-rich owners and the rest of the owners.

I see Bettman and Fehr (in effect) working on the same side of things, to force greater revenue sharing on the likes of the Maple Leafs.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Ha! .

 

[Fehr Time*]

If the league knows what's good for them then things could be ok, but I am not holding my breath.

 

[Retire91]

please let there not be another lockout. I am not sure if hockey has even returned to the level it was at the last lockout. Seem like NHL has been making huge leaps another lockout would be a disaster.

 

[Marc the Habs Fan]

This CBA only needs some tweaking (cap floor, escrow, burying big salaries, etc) if there is a lockout and we miss even 1 game it's a complete and total ****ing epic fail on all parts. Period.

 

[Melrose Munch]

please let there not be another lockout. I am not sure if hockey has even returned to the level it was at the last lockout. Seem like NHL has been making huge leaps another lockout would be a disaster.

Hockey is Done in the US if there is another lockout.

This CBA only needs some tweaking (cap floor, escrow, burying big salaries, etc) if there is a lockout and we miss even 1 game it's a complete and total ****ing epic fail on all parts. Period.

This is the NHL Marc. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

 

[chasespace]

This is the NHL Marc. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

Now they just need to learn to capitalize on what comes.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Now they just need to learn to capitalize on what comes.

Bingo.

 

[Ernie]

I don't think there will be a lockout. The next CBA will be a compromise amongst the owners more so than with the players. It'll be cheaper for the rich teams to throw some cash at the poor teams rather than risk losing a season. It also helps that TV revenues are rising. If the owners try to extract concessions from the players, without giving them something in return, they'll be blamed this time around.

 

[Ernie]

This CBA only needs some tweaking (cap floor, escrow, burying big salaries, etc) if there is a lockout and we miss even 1 game it's a complete and total ****ing epic fail on all parts. Period.

yeah, the cap floor is a big one. The owners screwed up when they set the lower limit to be $16m below the cap.

In 2005, the floor was $23m, just 58% of the $39m cap. Now the floor is $48m, 75% of the $64m cap. That really limits the salary range in which teams can operate and puts a lot of pressure on "have not" teams. If they fix the floor at 60% of the cap, it'll limit the losses of the poorer teams, reducing the need for additional revenue sharing. It also lessens parity, but it won't be near as bad as before the lockout, when some teams were spending $20m and others $100m.

 

[Shrimper]

Lowering the floor would also help get rid of some of the astronomically big salaries that some players get. Teams could save themselves a lot of money from that and use it to do up the arena's and the general back-ground staff at the club. I can't see there being another lockout, Bettman won't want that to happen.

 

[Melrose Munch]

Lowering the floor would also help get rid of some of the astronomically big salaries that some players get. Teams could save themselves a lot of money from that and use it to do up the arena's and the general back-ground staff at the club. I can't see there being another lockout, Bettman won't want that to happen.

That will never happen, unless you want hockey to disappear in the US.

 

[chasespace]

That will never happen, unless you want hockey to disappear in the US.

Do you mean the lowering of the salary floor or the disappearance of the high-profile contracts?

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Can't see another lockout happening. With the U.S. economy still in the doldrums i could see the players cut of overall revenue decreasing by a few percentage points. It happened in the NFL, the most financially successful pro league in the world. I'm sure the owners we're paying attention to this. I could also see the range between the salary floor cap rising - approx. $20 - $25 million - and increased revenue sharing amongst teams. This would help some of the weak sisters in the league although one are two will most likely move to other cities.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

This CBA only needs some tweaking (cap floor, escrow, burying big salaries, etc) if there is a lockout and we miss even 1 game it's a complete and total ****ing epic fail on all parts. Period.

You can't tweak the floor with % of revenue being the cap. Just doesn't work like that.

I'm guessing guaranteed contracts will be discussed, ways to market the game over the internet (which could turn into gold for both parties) will be discussed, front loading of contracts will be discussed, hiding players in the AHL will be discussed and revenue sharing will be discussed.

Players are not going to want to get rid of a cap that forces teams like the Oilers and the Panthers to spend 45+ million per year.

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Do you mean the lowering of the salary floor or the disappearance of the high-profile contracts?

You can't lower the floor on a revenue based hard cap, unless the revenue % is adjusted

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

yeah, the cap floor is a big one. The owners screwed up when they set the lower limit to be $16m below the cap.

In 2005, the floor was $23m, just 58% of the $39m cap. Now the floor is $48m, 75% of the $64m cap. That really limits the salary range in which teams can operate and puts a lot of pressure on "have not" teams. If they fix the floor at 60% of the cap, it'll limit the losses of the poorer teams, reducing the need for additional revenue sharing. It also lessens parity, but it won't be near as bad as before the lockout, when some teams were spending $20m and others $100m.

There has never been a team near 100 million in salaries. The Leafs actually never went over 60 and was closer to 50 most of the time. Exaggerating on a point like that ruins your argument

 

[Ernie]

I cannot see the NHLPA agreeing to lower their percentage, not with Fehr in charge.

If the owners hold out for that, I would bet we do indeed see a lockout. This time around the owners would be blamed for it. Shaving a few points off the players take wouldn't be a major game changer either; teams that are losing $10m a year would instead be losing $8m a year. They need more help than that.

 

[kdb209]

You can't tweak the floor with % of revenue being the cap. Just doesn't work like that.

Sure you could.

You could significantly lower the floor - or get rid of it entirely - and it would not effect how much money the players as a whole would receive.

The players are guaranteed their 54-57% (or whatever Players Share is agreed to in the next CBA) - no more, no less.

If the Lower Limit went away, some small market teams may spend less, but the only effect would be to reduce the amount that the Players would be giving back through escrow. In the unlikely event that total player compensation came in at less than the Players Share, the owners would have to make add'l prorated payments to the players to make up any shortfall.

 

[Epsilon]

The only way I see a lockout happening is if the owners try to get greedy and force a deal on the players that removes guaranteed contracts, which they will never agree to.

 

[Ernie]

There has never been a team near 100 million in salaries. The Leafs actually never went over 60 and was closer to 50 most of the time. Exaggerating on a point like that ruins your argument

The Wings and the Rangers were at $77m before the lockout, while the Predators were at $23m. I rough guessed without checking, but I think my point stands pretty well.

Interestingly enough the Predators were a playoff team that year, while the Rangers were not (not even close!) Things would be different now though with the way younger players are paid significantly more and free agency starts much younger. It's much harder to build a team through the draft.

 

[Ernie]

Sure you could.

You could significantly lower the floor - or get rid of it entirely - and it would not effect how much money the players as a whole would receive.

The players are guaranteed their 54-57% (or whatever Players Share is agreed to in the next CBA) - no more, no less.

If the Lower Limit went away, some small market teams may spend less, but the only effect would be to reduce the amount that the Players would be giving back through escrow. In the unlikely event that total player compensation came in at less than the Players Share, the owners would have to make add'l prorated payments to the players to make up any shortfall.

Another option would be to raise the upper limit, and decrease the lower limit, so the midpoint remains the same. For instance, the cap goes up to $70m, the floor goes down to $42m. As a fan of a "rich" team, I'd be for that.