Sides 'a long way apart' (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread)

[cobra427]

The average playing career is 5 years and avg salary 2.4 mill. The owners offer is a 10% reduction in year one, lets say that is for the an entire career. 5 years times 2.2 mill is 11 mill, so 10% is 1.1 mill in lost wages for a career avg. With 6 months of pay, if the players miss October, November, and December, they will have effectively given up 10% of their total career pay. They are way better off taking the deal rather then giving it up for sure in a 3 month lockout and gambling that they can negotiate a better deal. There odds are less then 10% of a better enough deal that they should gamble and miss pay checks. Is any player or Fehr doing the math? I am assuming this is about money, right, not principles...

 

[Ciao]

I think the the 2005 CBA's "35 year old" rule was what ended a lot of careers. That and lack of contract option years (which were abolished).

The 2005 CBA put a lot of emphasis on development, and if you couldn't get a guy to decent production by 27 (new UFA age), it was "adios, amigo".

I think it really is a much younger league now. I don't think the players of today are at all comparable to, for example, Jason Allison who could score but not skate.

Now all players have to skate well, and reduction of hooking and holding probably also contributed to the attrition of older players after the the last lockout.

 

[rdawg1234]

no updates today? new proposal? anything?

 

[Killion]

In my league, players would have no say, on the other hand, a contract is a contract, so you have the right to get every penny you signed for, not less.

... interesting. So you think we should just go back to the old Sponsorship System, A/B/C Forms, indentured servitude for the life of your usefulness & career. In a purely capitalistic late 19th to early 21st century return to forever. If I was an owner, Id love it. If I was a player,
not so much.

 

[free0717]

Make a deal
1st year 55%, 2nd year 53%, 3rd year 51%, 4th through 12th year 50%. Cap is $8,000,000 above midpoint, no floor. One free Buyout per year @ 2/3 salary in year 1-4.

3 year elc, year 4 and 5 no Arb rights, year 6 and 7 arb rights, year 8 or 27 years old UFA.

No rollbacks or additional escrow

7 year contract limit with the player not being paid more or less than 20% of the Cap number in any one year.

Buyouts are @ 1/2 the value of the contract spreadout over twice the amount of time of the seasons left on the Contract.

Move Phoenix and One more low revenue producing team to Canada(Quebec City and North Toronto). That would raise the gross revenue of the league.

Revenue share 50% of all gate reciepts. It takes two teams to play a game.

First year take 2% of all revenue and rebate to teams that lost money

Second thru 12th year take 4% of all revenue and rebate to teams that lost money.


This would produce an incredibly strong league. Any owner would be out of there mind not to accept this deal. Players may not like it but if they want to play, thats the way it has to be or otherwise Bettman will just blow it up.


Make the deal.

 

[TCsmyth]

241 players never played another game in the NHL after the end of the 2003-2004 season. Pretty significant chunk of the PA to lose to lockout. But if I know anything about the way unions work, it's that they think it's better to lose 20% of members than to have 100% of members take a 20% cut.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2004_final.html

Is everyone really sure the players are willing to sit if 25% are going to get a 100% pay cut?

Really quick look at that list and the names that jump out to me off the cuff Francis, Bergevin, Botteril, Bylsma, Lowry, Oates, Messier have moved into some level of NHL coaching, management or ownership...kinda interesting to me

 

[Crows*]

Just came to talk about that. I just read an article with some interesting quotes from an annonomys " former flyer" who is at the meetings.

http://mobile.philly.com/sports/flyers/?wss=/philly/sports/flyers&id=169586796&viewAll=y#more



"I remember during the last lockout, we were pounding our fist on the table saying that we won't accept a [salary] cap under any circumstances," said one former Flyer before walking into the meetings on Wednesday. "By February, we took the cap. If we were going to cave, why didn't we just do it from the start so we could actually get paid?

"A lot of players have a lot of different views. For me, I have 1, maybe 2 years left. By voting to play hardball, I could effectively be ending my career. Then again, should we just lie down and take it from the owners? It will be interesting to see how everyone else feels."

 

[Milliardo]

Good luck with that.

I've never heard of anyone who knows how to do what you would like to happen in a legally enforceable manner.

Well, in most european leagues, there is no revenue sharing and the league just adjustes the rules as they think its right without having to ask for the players permission.

 

[Ola]

Philosophically the players have agreed to accept less OVER TIME --thus the principle
for the direction of a deal is there but not the length of time nor the % such that the total "give in" by the NHLPA is YET acceptable to the NHL ...THE NHL via BETTMAN is still squuezing harder than the NHLPA will accept...

THE solution is already known to most fans : it HAS to be : 1. A freeze of the NHLPA "take" at current level --not in % but in fixed amount to the current level (of 57% of HRR) with ALL "growth" in revenue beyond that going to the NHL UNTIL the NHL "take" equals 50% ...2. ONCE the takes from HRR equalize at 50% (eg. 2 years at 3.5% growth per year--sooner if the growth % increase is better,longer if it takes more time ) -then all future growth beyonnd that equalization point should be a 50-50split...

ALSO to the concerns about helping weaker market teams via
revenue sharing set asides --both equal "partners" should contribute to it--BUT until the HRR "take " equalizes at 50% each -the burden of this "INDUSTRY FUND" should be totally on the owners...once it gets to a 50-50 split in the dollar amounts then each side can set up a % ( 1% each ?) of that furture growth beyond the equalization level of dollars) to help this reserve INDUSTRY HELP Fund
remain in good finanicial health... Till the equalization point the NHL will need to fund this fund to help the weaker teams.


ANOTHER idea to help the weaker market teams would be an ability for them to sell unused cap to the more successful teams in return for dollars or assets... What limit the saleable unused cap allowed to be traded should be is up for negotiation but a good idea would be upto to $10 million... If a team s losing $30 million that won't solve the problem-but a 2% of HRR industry Fund at current levels would be $66million to be divided among the 10-15 teams in the most financial distress---only a few teams lose $20-30 million --most of the other distressed teams have more moderate losses --so you scale the INDUSTRY FUND distributions accordingly..

THis willnot guarantee all teams profitability --but it will get a lot more teams nearer to that and willreduce the burdens on the least viable franchises such that it attracts better ownership or that a light down the road a future growth eventually cuts those losses down towards break-even --can be seen.


There is no perfect solution -but a FAIR solution would not force to players to give back anything from their ciurrent level of PAY ,but give the owners ALL the growth from here UNTIL HRR gets equalized at 50-50 each side ,and a scheme to help out the financially weaker teams also needs implementation. Finally they need labour peace-no deal ought to be less than 10 years...

Looked at in these SIMPLE terms- it is hard to understand why there is no deal yet along these lines.

It is as if the FANS can outline a better deal than either of the sides can ---given their own desire of ego and a PR "win" ...

I am more and more feeling that both sides basically have realized pretty much exactly in what direction this negotiation is going. IE, put Bettman and Fehr's house at stake and ask them to take a shot at betting on the final CBA, youd basically get the final CBA. IE 2, what's left for them is to get the people they reprsent to give up what they have to give up.

 

[Milliardo]

... interesting. So you think we should just go back to the old Sponsorship System, A/B/C Forms, indentured servitude for the life of your usefulness & career. In a purely capitalistic late 19th to early 21st century return to forever. If I was an owner, Id love it. If I was a player,
not so much.

What a great comparison...

Nobody forces anyone to sign an NHL contract. If these poor millionaires feel treated unfairly, they can sign a contract somewhere else.

 

[Epsilon]

What a great comparison...

Nobody forces anyone to sign an NHL contract. If these poor millionaires feel treated unfairly, they can sign a contract somewhere else.

You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how labor and antitrust laws in the United States work.

 

[Rooverick*]

Make the deal.

10 years based on current definition of HRR.

Year 1 57%
Year 2 55%
Year 3 53%
Year 4 51%
Years 5-10 50%

 

[mbar]

If the players are hell bent on not taking less then the $1.87b they received last year, perhaps a deal could be worked out where they players take something like 57-55-53-50-50-50 percent of revenue with the caveat that the $1.87b is the "floor" of what they will be paid.

This would save face for the players as they won't earn less in a new deal.

This could work for the owners if they are confident (and there are many reasons to be) that revenue growth will continue over the next 5-6 years and they get to get revenue sharing down to 50-50 like most other cap leagues.

Just a thought, be nice.

 

[Rooverick*]

If the players are hell bent on not taking less then the $1.87b they received last year, perhaps a deal could be worked out where they players take something like 57-55-53-50-50-50 percent of revenue with the caveat that the $1.87b is the "floor" of what they will be paid.

This would save face for the players as they won't earn less in a new deal.

This could work for the owners if they are confident (and there are many reasons to be) that revenue growth will continue over the next 5-6 years and they get to get revenue sharing down to 50-50 like most other cap leagues.

Just a thought, be nice.

Similar to my idea, but I don't like the concept that the players take no risk. If revenues go down, so should their take.

 

[Milliardo]

You don't seem to have the slightest clue as to how labor and antitrust laws in the United States work.

I don't live in the US nor do I care about their laws. It works in other places but please enlighten me why NHL players have more to say than a guy working at McDonalds. I get why the NHL player earns more, but why does he have more say? Again, I don't care how, but as long as the players have a say about stuff they don't understand, we will have a lockout every time the CBA expires.

 

[Tripod]

Whenever I see the players talk about revenue sharing, it gets on my nerves. The players expect the owners to share their money...I don't see the players doing that. Maybe the league should suggest that ALL players make the same $ per game, and whoever plays...gets paid. I but the players wouldn't like that. So why should a rich team(like NYR) have to pay a lesser team.

If 18 teams are not making $, there is a problem. They need to fix it so EVERY team makes $. Imagine being an owner of a team at the bottom knowing that you have a minumum salary you have to spend and if you do so, you can't make $.

 

[Milliardo]

Similar to my idea, but I don't like the concept that the players take no risk. If revenues go down, so should their take.

Yep. You want 50% of the pie (or more), yout better carry 50% of the risk (or more).

 

[PaPaDee]

Make the deal.

10 years based on current definition of HRR.

Year 1 57%
Year 2 55%
Year 3 53%
Year 4 51%
Years 5-10 50%

Yep, it seems painfully obvious that this is what a deal will look like (or something similar). Players want no rollbacks or increases in escrow, done. Owners want a 50/50 split, done.

Can we just please agree to this now rather than waiting 3-4 months and having the exact same deal being agreed to?

 

[SuperUnknown]

A proposal for the fans...

The NHL agrees to cut ticket prices by 20% across the board, in all rinks for all tickets for the next five years, indexed at a 2% growth rate to cover increases in non player costs. This reduces total revenues by about $400M from quick calculations. Split the reduction 50-50 between owners and players ($200M each). Fix player salaries at $1.69B for the next five years + 50% of revenue growth on other revenues than ticket prices. To cover the reduction in ticket prices, all current contracts will be reduced by 12%. Have a % apply to low/max cap instead of the current set differential. Have a minimum cap of 70% of the average (would be $39.4M) and a maximum cap of 115% of the average (would be $64,8M).

The result:

- Cost certainty for fans with more affordable tickets (yay for the fans).
- More breathing room for the teams with lower budgets.
- Better piece of pie for the owners on future non ticket revenues.
- Higher initial share of revenues for the players (58%)

Then we would see if players are really "about the fans"...

 

[ColePens]

Limit folks...


Continued here:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1259395