Sides 'a long way apart' (MOD: CBA negotiations status thread)
- Thread starter Fugu
- Start date
- Status
bennysflyers16
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2004
- 84,700
- 62,782
irunthepeg
Board man gets paid
Love the 5-7 year max contract cap. I'm not sure about the 3-5 years ELC though, especially with the projected length of a career. Although, with the way they're still getting paid really good money on an ELC, 4 years would be okay with me.
Oh and WTF about no games in the hall
?
Butch 19
Go cart Mozart
I would be willing to gamble that this time next year, there is still no agreement
I disagree - I think they will reach an agreement tomorrow, the day before the NHL starts cancelling games.
Today and tomorrows offer from the owners will be AS GOOD AS IT GETS.
Last lockout, the players eventually accepted a lesser offer than what had been offered during negotiations. Why would the owners offer MORE after losing another season? Think the players remember that?
I really, really hope you're right. But given Fehr's track record, I don't see anything getting done before Saturday. A December/January start up seems more likely to me.
bennysflyers16
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2004
- 84,700
- 62,782
Will also be sweet to see Gary's precious Coyotes fold . Zero chance hockey survives in Phoenix if NHL cancels another season.
Agreed, and it probably would be best to move on from the Coyotes anyways. Losing money is one thing, hemoraging it is another.
Absolutely, and I hope the NHLPA knows that. From then on, the offers will get worse and worse.
I don't know the percentages being offered will get much worse, but the size of the pie that we're talking about is going to get smaller and smaller, resulting in less money being available for the players.
You're thinking that the owners could force the players to contract out of anti-trust laws? Wherever would you have picked-up that idea?
Tripping is one of the rules of an athletic contest, to which anti-trust law does not apply. Refusing to accept collusiuve terms of employment is actually quite different from "a player not accepting that tripping is not allowed."
You do get that, don't you?
Edgar Halliwax
aka Marvin Candle
Without a CBA, you'd have the superstars making really big bucks (which is fine - probably the way it should be).
What you would NEVER have is guys who score 5 or 6 goals a year securing million dollar per annum contracts...
That was just an example, HOW they do it, I don't care. Compare it to you owning a club. Anybody can get in, you don't have to, but don't go running to a judge to complain about the prices, you entered the club on you own will. I know it's not a perfect example, because frankly, there isn't one. 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.
Egil
Registered User
While I believe that some of the depth players would be paid less, a look at soccer would suggest that the top teams would fill themselves with well paid bench warmers. Furthermore, alot of the players you are talking about can collect $200+ in Europe (this already a problem with Europeans in the AHL), so it is unlikely that too many of them would get a drastic pay cut.
Ad certainly, the players share of revenue would be well above 50%, so I believe that decertification is a distinct possibility NEXT time (the players will agree to a deal shortly for this CBA with an eye on the next negotiation).
Can we just get Will Arnett to suspend everyone and owners and let him handle it. I bet he'd get it done in an hour
Epsilon
#basta
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?
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?
Like I said, I don't care how they do it, just limit the players say, end of story.
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" ...
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" ...
This old argument again. So the best table tennis players should be paid millions as well? Or the best coal miners?
You dont think the owners are shooting themselves in the foot when they're willing to gamble all the growth they've had over the past several years to try and cut what they're paying. The owners havent said they need to do this to save small market teams or that they need to cut costs so they can keep the poorer teams going, their only justification is that they feel they are paying the players too much.
I dont get the vindictiveness towards the players on these boards. It's clear that ticket prices arent based on what the players get since they didnt drop 25% after the last lockout and havent stopped rising since. The owners are at least as greedy as the players in this situation. I have a hard time feeling sympathy for either side in this.
LadyStanley
Registered User
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".
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.
- Status
