Jump to content
The Official Site of the Chicago Blackhawks

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PuckProphet

Cba Discussion

Recommended Posts

Renaud P Lavoie‏@RenLavoieRDS

3-contracts limites to 5 years 4-no more salary arbitration. 5- entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3.

Retweeted by Michael Russo

Expand Reply

14m Renaud P Lavoie‏@RenLavoieRDS

NHL proposal to players: 1-reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 %. 2-10 seasons in NHL before being

Greg Wyshynski‏@wyshynski

Don't worry folks: The NHL's CBA proposal equates to *only* an immediate 22% reduction in player salaries. #OyVey #LockoutCity

That is some fast pitch hardball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Proteau ‏@Proteautype

"The moment the proposal was presented, every player in the room knew Gary had just written off 1st 3 months of the season." - an NHL agent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like haggling. id ask for a high ridiculous demands and you say no and give me a counter offer and somewhere in the middle we'll meet. And that is the real demand/conclusion that was intended in the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like haggling. id ask for a high ridiculous demands and you say no and give me a counter offer and somewhere in the middle we'll meet. And that is the real demand/conclusion that was intended in the beginning.

Unless they are like the CTU :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like haggling. id ask for a high ridiculous demands and you say no and give me a counter offer and somewhere in the middle we'll meet. And that is the real demand/conclusion that was intended in the beginning.

thats the point they are not going to accept going to 52

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to say it but if the league takes a hard-line stance with that proposal we are looking at another lockout that could cost not 2012-2013, but also 2013-2014. There is absolutely NO way the PA will ever accept that proposal, especially the drop to 46% of take-home revenues. Here's hoping (probably wishful) that this is just a framework that will NOT be the finished CBA.

One more thing: no matter what happens we the fans are going to get raked over the coals (once again) with higher ticket prices. I really wish a group of fans can sit in on the CBA negotiations and let Bettman and Fehr know that we're the reason that there is a NHL in the 1st place. We can spend our dollars somewhere else but we choose to buy tickets, jerseys, and other NHL stuff because we love the game. The NHL will not survive another work stoppage, mark my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hate to say it but if the league takes a hard-line stance with that proposal we are looking at another lockout that could cost not 2012-2013, but also 2013-2014. There is absolutely NO way the PA will ever accept that proposal, especially the drop to 46% of take-home revenues. Here's hoping (probably wishful) that this is just a framework that will NOT be the finished CBA.

One more thing: no matter what happens we the fans are going to get raked over the coals (once again) with higher ticket prices. I really wish a group of fans can sit in on the CBA negotiations and let Bettman and Fehr know that we're the reason that there is a NHL in the 1st place. We can spend our dollars somewhere else but we choose to buy tickets, jerseys, and other NHL stuff because we love the game. The NHL will not survive another work stoppage, mark my words.

I don't think the owners expect them to accept 46%. If the owners are looking to be at 50% to 52%, why would they start at the number they want?

Just for fun; if the owners were to get 46%, that would put the salary cap @ $57.67m. Although I do not like Stan, he has the Hawks in position where they will not have to trim much and the fat he would have to trim would be; Montador, Frolik & Hammer, that wouldn't kill them that bad. Now teams like Boston, Minnesota, San Jose, Vancouver & Calgary; these owners are probably in the minority and wouldn't care if the player's share was only shaved slightly.

potentialsalarycap.jpg

**Note: This is the formula from the present CBA.**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like haggling. id ask for a high ridiculous demands and you say no and give me a counter offer and somewhere in the middle we'll meet. And that is the real demand/conclusion that was intended in the beginning.

Exactly. If anyone has watched Pawn Stars, they do this all the time. They know where they want to be and figure I'll say some amount and get talked down to the number I'm looking for.

On a side note, I'm almost interested to see a lockout. I want to see what they would do with the Stanley Cup. The Trustees were taken to court last time after it wasn't awarded, and the court ruled that it can be awarded to a non NHL team if the NHL doesn't play. I think this would make things interesting and we would see a few heroes emerge in places we didn't expect to see. A few players working hard in the lesser ranks would have their careers jump started by something like that to. Not to mention, that would be historic; the first time the Stanley Cup is awarded to a non NHL team since 1926.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure call it haggling if you like, but this starting point for the Owners who are dumping money on players this summer is like it was candy is rediculous...especially when your dealing w/ one Donald Fehr.

Main points...took these from two of the bloggers over at the Buzz. Todd Correll the Devils blogger and Julie Robenheymer who does the college hockey spotlight. Take a good look and tell me we're not going to have a lockout.

1. Reduce players hockey related revenues from 57% to 46%.

2. You play 10 NHL seasons before becoming an unrestricted free agent.

3. The max contract length you can sign for is five years.

4. No more salary arbitration for players.

5. Standard entry-level contracts would be five years in length instead of three.

6. Same salary in each season of the contract.

7. No signing bonuses.

8. Cap ceiling to be 4mil above midpoint, floor 8mil under.

I'm sure the NHLPA will respond in kind w/ their own points...but w/ only about 2 months until camp I can't see this happening. And we know who gets screwed - us the fans.

Here's a link to Todd's article if anyone is interested...

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-Cordell/NHL-Makes-First-Offer-to-NHLPA-Towards-a-New-CBA-Not-a-Very-Good-One/159/45607

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere fact that this information became public shows that this is going to be a prolonged negotiation that will cost part of the season. Unlike the last time, the players have the upper hand. You can't show years of record growth since the last CBA and then demand another roll-back. The only reason some franchises are suffering now is due to mismanagement - and that's not the players responsibility.

There are some things that clearly need to be tweaked from the last CBA but I don't know why the players would even remotely accept a salary rollback given the FACT that the league is making money. Whereas last time I thought the owners had a legitimate reason to stand tough and force a salary cap CBA, I now think it's the players who should stand tough. And while I'm no Donald Fehr fan, he's probably the right guy to keep the NHLPA on track in what now appears will be a contentious negotiation.

Of course I'm guessing if the players have some sort of ridiculous demand, I'll go back to hating the guy. Start watching your DVDs of the 2010 season, because that may be the closest thing to NHL action you might see this fall. The Bears better be good this year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure call it haggling if you like, but this starting point for the Owners who are dumping money on players this summer is like it was candy is rediculous...especially when your dealing w/ one Donald Fehr.

Main points...took these from two of the bloggers over at the Buzz. Todd Correll the Devils blogger and Julie Robenheymer who does the college hockey spotlight. Take a good look and tell me we're not going to have a lockout.

1. Reduce players hockey related revenues from 57% to 46%.

2. You play 10 NHL seasons before becoming an unrestricted free agent.

3. The max contract length you can sign for is five years.

4. No more salary arbitration for players.

5. Standard entry-level contracts would be five years in length instead of three.

6. Same salary in each season of the contract.

7. No signing bonuses.

8. Cap ceiling to be 4mil above midpoint, floor 8mil under.

I'm sure the NHLPA will respond in kind w/ their own points...but w/ only about 2 months until camp I can't see this happening. And we know who gets screwed - us the fans.

Here's a link to Todd's article if anyone is interested...

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-Cordell/NHL-Makes-First-Offer-to-NHLPA-Towards-a-New-CBA-Not-a-Very-Good-One/159/45607

Agree, D. I know negotiation 101 is that you have an idea of where you want to end up, so you start high to leave room to haggle. I heard this list on XM 92 NHL Home Ice Friday, and had the same thought you did: six weeks til camp starts, and this is the league's opening shot?

I'll be expecting a changed version of my partial package at some point, and be surprised if I see a live game before Thanksgiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree, D. I know negotiation 101 is that you have an idea of where you want to end up, so you start high to leave room to haggle. I heard this list on XM 92 NHL Home Ice Friday, and had the same thought you did: six weeks til camp starts, and this is the league's opening shot?

I'll be expecting a changed version of my partial package at some point, and be surprised if I see a live game before Thanksgiving.

I've sold cars for over twenty years,some of em had prices in the stratosphere so I realize that 'start high,you can always go down' is a tried and true method of negotiating but this is WAY more than a shot across the bow! I knew that the MASSIVE concessions made by the NFLPA and the NBAPA would be motivation for NHL mgnt. but the strides the NHL has made in relevance and revenues the past few years could easily be lost by a long work stoppage! http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/whistle_nhl_for_lashing_ICDTR32c3ctsOZ3siejtMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mere fact that this information became public shows that this is going to be a prolonged negotiation that will cost part of the season. Unlike the last time, the players have the upper hand. You can't show years of record growth since the last CBA and then demand another roll-back. The only reason some franchises are suffering now is due to mismanagement - and that's not the players responsibility.

There are some things that clearly need to be tweaked from the last CBA but I don't know why the players would even remotely accept a salary rollback given the FACT that the league is making money. Whereas last time I thought the owners had a legitimate reason to stand tough and force a salary cap CBA, I now think it's the players who should stand tough. And while I'm no Donald Fehr fan, he's probably the right guy to keep the NHLPA on track in what now appears will be a contentious negotiation.

Of course I'm guessing if the players have some sort of ridiculous demand, I'll go back to hating the guy. Start watching your DVDs of the 2010 season, because that may be the closest thing to NHL action you might see this fall. The Bears better be good this year!

1. The players will never have the upper hand until they own the teams and the players stand to lose anywhere between 1.7 to 2.1 billion dollars that can never be made back. The owners have the ability to make their losses up. If the players felt they had the upper hand they would have gone on strike before last season.

2. The growth that is shown is revenue only. The cap is increased based on revenues; it's not based on profit & loss. Just because the revenues have gone up does not mean there is a big profit so the reasons salaries went up is because the cap went up and the owners are saying the formula needs to be tweaked because they deem it unsustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any work stoppage past pre-season and I'm done with hockey. I love the game but as other posters put it we are the ones hurt most by these tactics. Many fans will come back and that is what they bank on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The players will never have the upper hand until they own the teams and the players stand to lose anywhere between 1.7 to 2.1 billion dollars that can never be made back. The owners have the ability to make their losses up. If the players felt they had the upper hand they would have gone on strike before last season.

2. The growth that is shown is revenue only. The cap is increased based on revenues; it's not based on profit & loss. Just because the revenues have gone up does not mean there is a big profit so the reasons salaries went up is because the cap went up and the owners are saying the formula needs to be tweaked because they deem it unsustainable.

1. I believe the players have the upper hand in terms of public opinion(perhaps I should have stated this). Another prolonged lock-out during a major recession will kill the league. The NHL is not the NFL, MLB or NBA and for owners to think they can wait it out like last time will kill any concessions they may get. With rising revenues, it would have been pointless for the NHLPA to go on strike.

2. You stated that the owners have the ability to make their losses up. They also have the responsibility to run their organizations in a profitable manner. If revenue is growing then why are there losses? Why are some teams not profitable? Nobody held a gun to Rick DiPeitro's head and told him to sign a 15 year, $4.5 million dollar contract. This time the burden lies with ownership's ability to manage their business correctly. Maybe their intent is to re-adjust the definition of revenue? - I don't know but their inability to balance their budgets is not due to the demands of the players.

I'm in agreement that the CBA needs tweaking but their opening salvo is utterly ridiculous. I'm sure the players would agree to some adjustments, but I can't see why they would conceed to any kind of payroll rollback. No one is disputing the revenue - unlike the 2005. And players do have some leverage in playing in Europe, especially with the nutty owners in the KHL. They (the players) should just pool their money to buy their own private planes while they are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've sold cars for over twenty years,some of em had prices in the stratosphere so I realize that 'start high,you can always go down' is a tried and true method of negotiating but this is WAY more than a shot across the bow! I knew that the MASSIVE concessions made by the NFLPA and the NBAPA would be motivation for NHL mgnt. but the strides the NHL has made in relevance and revenues the past few years could easily be lost by a long work stoppage! http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/whistle_nhl_for_lashing_ICDTR32c3ctsOZ3siejtMI

Bob thanks for the link...this is not just an opening shot - read 10mil salary cap rollback. Its rediculous - unfrankin' real w/ these guys. Bettman sucks!!!! This article really spells it out...and its disgusting. They're finally making inroads and the league is gaining popularity esp. w/ the Kings just winning a Cup and they're really going to kill it. Just sad. You think Fehr isn't going to play hard ball w/ these guys just wait.

The people out there who wish to interpret this as merely a first proposal from which negotiations can now proceed are kidding themselves. Negotiate off what? Should the NHLPA — which sat through three or four previous days of being told why the current agreement doesn’t work for one team after another — counter by proposing elimination of the cap, a payroll tax at $80 million and free agency after three years?

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/whistle_nhl_for_lashing_ICDTR32c3ctsOZ3siejtMI#ixzz20jTwtvDU

http://www.csnchicago.com/hockey-chicago-blackhawks/blackhawks-talk/Owners-proposal-now-includes-salary-cap-?blockID=740616&feedID=10334

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The players will never have the upper hand until they own the teams and the players stand to lose anywhere between 1.7 to 2.1 billion dollars that can never be made back. The owners have the ability to make their losses up. If the players felt they had the upper hand they would have gone on strike before last season.

2. The growth that is shown is revenue only. The cap is increased based on revenues; it's not based on profit & loss. Just because the revenues have gone up does not mean there is a big profit so the reasons salaries went up is because the cap went up and the owners are saying the formula needs to be tweaked because they deem it unsustainable.

SammieL went to the KHL While boasting and bragging the Russians did pay the drinker 9.2.... A Few other leagues could benefit... Without thinking of the legalities if they could do like the NBAers and go somewhere else or would it void contracts. As Down lows graph shows Even 55% presents some cap woes let alone 52%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they can't just say: Players get 50% and Owners get 50% of the revenue. Call it good. Play some hockey.

I don't know if the NHL can survive another lock-out. They already have teams that are on the brink of collapse as it is. You would think that both players and owners would realize this and get their act together.

I guess the owners just want revenues that are parallel with the rest of the CEOs in this country, you know 99% and the players get 1%. Greed. Whatever. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if the NHL can survive another lock-out. They already have teams that are on the brink of collapse as it is. You would think that both players and owners would realize this and get their act together.

Contraction would do the league good.

I guess the owners just want revenues that are parallel with the rest of the CEOs in this country, you know 99% and the players get 1%. Greed. Whatever.

In that one percent you failed to mention those in the entertainment industry, athletes, politicians, media, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a little off track, but as a Rockford Icehog season ticket holder I would like to know how a NHL work stoppage would affect the AHL season.

There are no winners when there is a work stoppage. Everybody loses and once a sport loses it's fans because of a labor dispute, it's very difficult to win them back. Let's hope cooler heads will prevail in the negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is a little off track, but as a Rockford Icehog season ticket holder I would like to know how a NHL work stoppage would affect the AHL season.

There will be a little more interest in the AHL season, other than that, it will not affect the AHL season at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×