I'd say so. Sounds like the players are actually going to respond to this proposal rather than laugh hysterically at it.
Lockout/CBA Discussion Thread
Collapse
Recommended Videos
Collapse
X
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
I'd say so. Sounds like the players are actually going to respond to this proposal rather than laugh hysterically at it. -
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
Room for optimism?
from the CP via TSN, "It's a proposal that we intend to respond to," said Fehr. "I'll leave it at that." The current collective agreement expires Sept. 15 and the NHL has it will lock the players out if a new deal isn't reached by then. Fehr and top assistant Steve Fehr met with…
"It's a proposal that we intend to respond to," said Fehr. "I'll leave it at that.""We believe that we made a significant, meaningful step," said Bettman after the second session.Comment
-
A month to go... Yup, of course now progress is being made.
Idiots.NHL - Philadelphia Flyers
NFL - Buffalo Bills
MLB - Cincinnati Reds
Originally posted by Money99And how does one levy a check that will result in only a slight concussion? Do they set their shoulder-pads to 'stun'?Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
FWIW, apparently Leipold (the Wild owner) has been somehow involved in the negotiations, and on the radio yesterday said that he personally feels that a deal will get done, and we will have hockey this year.University of Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey
Minnesota's Pride on Ice: 1974, 1976, 1979, 2002 & 2003 NCAA National Champions
"The name on the front of the jersey is a hell of a lot more important than the one on the back."
-Herb BrooksComment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404044While the National Hockey League and the NHL Players' Association work to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement before the September 15 deadline, details have emerged in regards to the league's most recent proposal that was tabled on Tuesday.
According to TSN Hockey Insider Darren Dreger, the basis of NHL's latest proposal is to reduce the league's financial demands - believed to be approximately $460 million in the league's first proposal - overall, including a $120 million reduction in its Year One demands.
The latest proposal is for a six-year term on the new CBA.
The first three years would come in at fixed, pre-negotiated players' share dollar thresholds: 11 per cent, 8.5 per cent and 5.5 per cent less than the 2011-12 totals in the first three years respectively.
The players would also get a share in "upside hockey-related revenue growth" of over 10 per cent in each of the first three years.
For the final three years of the deal the league and players split revenues 50-50.
The players' share percentages under the league's new definition of hockey-related revenues would be gradually reduced over the course of the six-year deal.
The 2012-13 season would see the players receive a 51.6 per cent cut. In 2013-14 that total would drop to 50.5 per cent, before further dipping to 49.6 per cent in 2014-15.
For the following three seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18) the players would see an even 50 per cent.
The salary cap would see an immediate reduction followed by a gradual rise over the course of the deal.
The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.
That number would rise to a fixed $60 million in 2013-14 and then to a fixed $62 million the following year.
Projected cap numbers for the final three years of the deal include: $64.2 million in 2015-16, $67.6 million in 2016-17 and $71.1 million in 2017-18.
The league's proposal did not include an across-the-board reduction (or "rollback") to existing contract values. Necessary adjustments would be financed entirely from a combination of modified contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and from the players' Escrow contributions.
58M and no rollback. No way this happens, but Avs wouldn't mind the 58M cap
Last edited by Kobalt; 08-28-2012, 11:51 PM.Comment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
It's a starting point at least.http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404044
58M and no rollback. No way this happens, but Avs wouldn't mind the 58M cap
If the league is asking for 58M for the first year, and a 50/50 split by the 6th year, then my guess is that they'd be happy with a 60-63M cap in year 1, and a 53/47 split (in the players favor) by year 6.
At least this proposal can be discussed and isn't a blatant slap in the face like their first offer.Comment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
Cap doesn't matter to Kroenke; he refuses to sink a lot ofmhis money into the team. They have had a ton of cap space the past few years but were 29th or 30th in payroll. That team needs new ownership.http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=404044
58M and no rollback. No way this happens, but Avs wouldn't mind the 58M cap
Back to the offer; it is at least an offer that opens itself up to negotiating.Currently Playing:
MLB The Show 25 (PS5)Comment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
I don't want to get this thread off track so if you don't care about the Avs, go to 3rd paragraph. Kroenke doesn't spend is a myth, no point of spending when you're rebuilding a team. No big FAs is coming to a rebuilding team, and there's no point of overpaying for average players and "block" young players from playing. That's why Ryan Smyth (who you know, Kroenke gave big money to) was shipped out, average player with a big contract wasn't a fit here. I also believe when they said they didn't want to be in the same situation as the last time when there was a new CBA like last time when they lost Foote, Forsberg, Selanne, and Kariya. Beside, I'll rather click the reset button rather than trying to build from this team. http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...006902008.htmlCap doesn't matter to Kroenke; he refuses to sink a lot ofmhis money into the team. They have had a ton of cap space the past few years but were 29th or 30th in payroll. That team needs new ownership.
Back to the offer; it is at least an offer that opens itself up to negotiating.
If they're really cheap, they would have let Jones walk, traded Stastny for nothing, not sign Hejda, etc. Overpaying for a FA also means that you might not have the cap flexibility re-sign one of your players. If you want to see a cheap owner, look at the Islanders and the total salary they're paying the players. I don't think they'll spend big on a FA until they get a fee what the cap will going to be for the future years and have Duchene, O'Reilly, Landeskog, etc on long term contracts.
Back to this, I bet owners are ecstatic about 58M offer, however the cap will probably be around 62~64M range.Last edited by Kobalt; 08-29-2012, 01:29 PM.Comment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
So much for optimism. This is looking like it's going to be Gary Bettman's third lockout in a matter of weeks.
NHL, NHLPA no closer to agreement after Friday meeting, no plans to meet again - ProHockeyTalk.comComment
-
Words cannot describe how much I hate him. With any luck, the Leafs get MacKinnon and Bettman is suspiciously murdered.So much for optimism. This is looking like it's going to be Gary Bettman's third lockout in a matter of weeks.
NHL, NHLPA no closer to agreement after Friday meeting, no plans to meet again - ProHockeyTalk.com
Does anyone really care where I sent this from?"Twelve at-bats is a pretty decent sample size." - Eric ByrnesComment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
My god. Talk about infuriating. Just split your millions of dollars 50/50, for Christ's sake...University of Minnesota Golden Gopher Hockey
Minnesota's Pride on Ice: 1974, 1976, 1979, 2002 & 2003 NCAA National Champions
"The name on the front of the jersey is a hell of a lot more important than the one on the back."
-Herb BrooksComment
-
Re: Potential Issues with the CBA
Still think the owners' rationale is 100% BS. Half the league's teams can't make the salary floor because the O6, Canucks, and Flyers are gouging their fans to the nth degree. So somehow this is the players' fault?
The logical solutions to the league's problems:
1. Cut the dead weight. Contract two teams, move another two to markets that can actually turn a buck.
OR
2. If the league wants to prop up the crap teams so badly, the rich owners can pay for it (ie, greatly enhanced revenue sharing).
OR
3. Nuke the cap.
Instead, the league wants to lower player salaries until ALL the poor teams can turn a profit (while the rich teams get richer still). Har-de-har-har. As if a 50-50 split would solve this. The players could play for free and the Coyotes and Islanders would still lose money.
The players got bent over in 2005, the league completely dictated the terms of the CBA, the league has never been more profitable, team values have never been higher, but it's the players' fault because fans in the league's non-hockey markets won't pay more than $30 for a ticket? Try harder, NHL.Originally posted by Thrash13Dr. Jones was right in stating that. We should have believed him.Originally posted by slickdtcDrJones brings the stinky cheese is what we've all learned from this debacle.Originally posted by Kipnis22yes your fantasy world when your proven wrong about 95% of your postComment



Comment