JAX
Registered User
its still possible to rework the schedule to get in short preseason and 82 games.
It's as about as possible as finding the elusive Yedi. Fehr wants games to be missed because his gameplan depends on the owners caving.....
its still possible to rework the schedule to get in short preseason and 82 games.
Very true, but they have been brainwashed into thinking if they hold out for a long time the owners will cave and give Fehr whatever he wants....because that's what happened when Fehr worked for the MLB players.
its still possible to rework the schedule to get in short preseason and 82 games.
Our beat writer in Minnesota said they could strike a deal maybe in the 3rd week of October and still play 82 games with an extra game each week during the season, I suppose you could look at it like an Olympic year where they are shut down during the season for a few weeks and still play 82 games. I would imagine in the next 2-3 days you will get at least the first week and maybe 2 weeks of games canceled
Our beat writer in Minnesota said they could strike a deal maybe in the 3rd week of October and still play 82 games with an extra game each week during the season, I suppose you could look at it like an Olympic year where they are shut down during the season for a few weeks and still play 82 games. I would imagine in the next 2-3 days you will get at least the first week and maybe 2 weeks of games canceled
It's as about as possible as finding the elusive Yedi. Fehr wants games to be missed because his gameplan depends on the owners caving.....
Perhaps because The Doctor took care of the Yeti in the 1960s? Too bad Captain Jack Harness isn't at the table; he has, let's say, unusual negotiating tactics.
Fehr would prefer to get full (100% of what's owed) to 600+ players for the (full) season, plus the (league) bonuses due to players for the playoffs.
By "eliminating" the preseason exhibition games, he's cut some of the revenue of the owners.
Owners not only are having lack of revenue from lost games, but now they also have the pressure of their sponsors and broadcast partners.
NBC won't be happy to pay $200mm for a "season" of hockey that is only 4 months rather than 6 months long.
Question: Has anyone asked either the NHL or NHLPA representatives(fehr, bettman etc.) if they would do a gradual decrease to 50%? not in the style of the PA's offer but a firm decrease not linked to 7% revenue growth?
what was the response?
I think Fehr vastly overestimates the amount of money in this league compared to MLB, NFL and NBA.
Sure some of these are tax writeoffs but if you were a smart owner, you'd want cost certainty so you could control exactly how much you're writing off.
We've already had it. The NHL's three proposals imply that they are willing to negotiate the HRR percentage somewhere around 50/50. The PA could have chosen to respond in kind, even in an insulting way by proposing a 60% share or maintaining their current 57% share.
However, they chose not to, because acknowledging even a ludicrous HRR % would indicate their willingness to take a smaller piece of the pie. So they're stonewalling.
I respect their opinion that they deserve that much and not a penny more. I just happen to think that their opinion is delusional and will lead to their downfall and overall detriment. Unfortunately that will go for the whole league and us as well.
Right. Everybody on the planet can see the revenues are much lower, but Fehr is too dumb to see it himself.
Yep, that's a credible hypothesis.
"Cost certainty" is EXACTLY what Bettman and the owners called the CBA that just expired.
Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap.
A couple of ways, off the top of my head...how exactly does one grandfather in old contracts while reducing the players share? Remove linkage? Just have newly-contracted players pay into escrow?
it doesnt make sense.
I'm not sure they do. My favorite talking point by the players, i.e. Lupul's piece, is talking about the NHL's record revenues over the span over the past CBA.
I guess they don't realize that in addition to record revenues, the NHL has had player expenses grow over the CBA as the cap has went from $39 million to $70 over the span of only 7 years.
I guess most of the players don't understand things like that. Except players who have spend three to four years in The NCAA. I guess they have at least a little clue?
So what? They've admitted they were wrong, and now they're asking for a tweak. Are they just supposed to keep pumping money into a business that isn't making money? Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap. They're looking for a 50/50 split.
So 50/50 is unreasonable because it is 'unfair' to ask for the players to take another 'pay cut' when the last so-called 'rollback' resulted in them making just as much money?
Or maybe it is 'unfair' because the owners are being the irresponsible ones by competing with one another for the very few elite players in the league? Which is true. But if the owners were responsible in a non-collectively bargained way, it would be collusion. No, noone held a gun to the owner's heads. But you're telling me some of these guys took those exorbitant contracts and went out to play in front of empty arenas and not a thought passed through their heads that maybe it was too good to be true?
Yeah, you don't turn down found money. But when the gravy train stops rolling, you don't whine and complain and act like a spoiled kid. And especially not when there's another gravy train behind it.
A couple of ways, off the top of my head...
- slowly ratchet down players' HRR share by 1% a year for the next 7 years
- multiply cap-hits for existing contracts by 0.877 (i.e. 50/57), while contracts signed after new CBA are rated at 100%
So what? They've admitted they were wrong, and now they're asking for a tweak. Are they just supposed to keep pumping money into a business that isn't making money? Again, it's not like they're trying to radically change the CBA in the way they did last time by asking for a salary cap. They're looking for a 50/50 split.
So 50/50 is unreasonable because it is 'unfair' to ask for the players to take another 'pay cut' when the last so-called 'rollback' resulted in them making just as much money?
Or maybe it is 'unfair' because the owners are being the irresponsible ones by competing with one another for the very few elite players in the league? Which is true. But if the owners were responsible in a non-collectively bargained way, it would be collusion. No, noone held a gun to the owner's heads. But you're telling me some of these guys took those exorbitant contracts and went out to play in front of empty arenas and not a thought passed through their heads that maybe it was too good to be true?
Yeah, you don't turn down found money. But when the gravy train stops rolling, you don't whine and complain and act like a spoiled kid. And especially not when there's another gravy train behind it.
Adam Proteau @Proteautype
Two sources told me this weekend that, should the lockout last the season, the NHLPA could pull the salary cap off the bargaining table
If so, I guess I'll just stick with the OHL for a few years
Adam Proteau @Proteautype
Two sources told me this weekend that, should the lockout last the season, the NHLPA could pull the salary cap off the bargaining table
We've already had it. The NHL's three proposals imply that they are willing to negotiate the HRR percentage somewhere around 50/50. The PA could have chosen to respond in kind, even in an insulting way by proposing a 60% share or maintaining their current 57% share.