[ Click to visit the Putting On The Foil Blog ]    
   
[ Support the Foil by shopping on Amazon.ca (CANADIAN) through this link ]     [ Support the Foil by shopping on Amazon.com (UNITED STATES) through this link ]

All things CBA

Talk about other NHL teams
User avatar
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:49 am
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:02 am
The players don't seem to be bargining in good faith.

The NHLs second offer increased revenue sharing from the first one as well as moved 3% of HRR over towards the players.

The players second offer seems to be fuck you we're not changing anything. Followed by going on twitter and crying about it, they need to be careful, because, already after the 2nd NHL proposal there was a shift in public opinion of blame away from the NHL.

It's not looking good for a full season of NHL hockey right now.

-------------------

Also I've been searching for the coyotes opperating costs which would have been published in their bankruptcy filings, but I haven't found a breakdown of them yet. It's hard to get a full grasp on things without seeing actual figures.
Image
User avatar
Coach
Posts: 1514
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:31 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:53 am
They should suck it up and realize how fortunate they are to be part of a system that worships players and teams sometimes completely unconditionally. It would have been a true inspiration to see, for example, the difference between their original offers being reinvested in local hockey programmes in the NHL cities. Both sides take cuts, and the public gains from it. Let not the players nor the owners have it all, let it go to the public - open rinks, hockey schools and various initiatives of that sort would set a massive example for the world of sports. "We just want what's fair". Oh, fuck off.
General Manager of the VIKINGS

NORACK CUP CHAMPION 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16
FHL PLAYOFF CHAMPION 2013-14, 2014-15
User avatar
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:49 am
PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:29 am
Funny you should say that.

The Sabres have just announced they're building 2 new public rinks, and the Predators are doing the same. The Oilers new rink will also have a second ice pad for public use.
Image
User avatar
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Edmonton
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:08 pm
I am so tired of both sides using social media to try and gain public support. They are doing nothing but making themselves look desperate in an attempt to gain support of the public. Both sides are taking us fans for grated and it really pisses me off. Both sides can go screw themselves for all I care. There are many other sporting leagues (Jr Hockey and NFL ) out their for me to watch so I ain't giving this lockout situation the time of day in my thoughts.
User avatar
General Manager
Posts: 3157
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 am
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:24 pm
I haven't seen anything from the NHL, but I've seen a lot from the PA.. they sound like the Soviet propaganda machine
User avatar
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Edmonton
PostPosted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 3:30 pm
Racki wrote:I haven't seen anything from the NHL, but I've seen a lot from the PA.. they sound like the Soviet propaganda machine

I think the NHL uses the traditional media more the social media. The players are just more in touch with social media then the heads that run the NHL. I didn't even know that Bettman was even on Twitter until I just searched him. He only has 30,000 followers, has made only 3 tweets and has not been active since April 2009. Guess thats one clue to how out of touch he really is with the fans.
User avatar
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:49 am
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:30 am
Racki wrote:I haven't seen anything from the NHL, but I've seen a lot from the PA.. they sound like the Soviet propaganda machine


you'll love this page

http://www.nhlpa.com/news/headlines/det ... -vs.-facts
Image
User avatar
General Manager
Posts: 3157
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 am
PostPosted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:37 pm
Racki's proposal:

Reduce earnings from anyone in the NHL.. manager, player otherwise. The amount your earning is reduced is scaled by how much you make (the big buck earning peeps lose the most)... share revenue "50/50" but with both sides taking significant cuts in their earnings. Put that amount into reducing ticket prices in markets like Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto, etc. where we are currently getting fleeced. There, the playing field is leveled.. nice and fair ;) Everyone happy, right? (sarcasm)

The only people getting screwed in this are us fans. The argument is all about "well you're making more money than I am!" when both sides are rich beyond belief. If anyone should be striking it should be the fans... too bad we love the game too much to do that.

It still blows my mind how blue collar folks are feeding in tonnes of money to a bunch of millionaires who are never satisfied (that includes owners, managers, players, Bettman, etc, etc..).
User avatar
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:16 pm
Location: Shallotte, North Carolina
PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:46 pm
NorwegianOiler wrote:They should suck it up and realize how fortunate they are to be part of a system that worships players and teams sometimes completely unconditionally. It would have been a true inspiration to see, for example, the difference between their original offers being reinvested in local hockey programmes in the NHL cities. Both sides take cuts, and the public gains from it. Let not the players nor the owners have it all, let it go to the public - open rinks, hockey schools and various initiatives of that sort would set a massive example for the world of sports. "We just want what's fair". Oh, fuck off.


This.
-Bringing mediocrity to a new level of awesome-
Image
User avatar
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:33 pm
Location: Stony Plain, Alberta
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:30 am
http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/0 ... e-players/

Speaking of the Soviet style Pravda machine....http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/2012/0 ... e-players/
Image
User avatar
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:33 pm
Location: Stony Plain, Alberta
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:34 am
Racki wrote:This past Saturday, Vygur (a poster here, although he doesn't post much at all) was told by an NHLer that the players were "preparing to strike"... so who knows.. they might be close to doing that now. But it's hard to say.. that doesn't necessarily mean they WILL strike. It would be pretty crappy if they did though. Like HL said, we need to see some Yak!

Yeah, a guy who is our neighbor at the lake has two sons that are former players. He says this will be long and bitter and he is on the owner's side.....

Players are determined and so is the league. Maybe a few months of KHL life will bring most of these assholes back to reality.

Play here or over in Russia with a frozen onion and a Yak 42 to skid you to work. The borscht is f'n A though.
Image
User avatar
Posts: 554
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:47 am
Location: Kelowna, BC
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 1:50 pm
So, I've been only partially paying attention to the NHL crap lately, but I had some time and thought I'd take a look at this whole revenue issue.

The funny thing is, the NHLPA is right – NHL revenues have continued to go up. The worse trouble is that the Owners are right – NHL profits have pretty much seen some steady declines.

I took a look at Forbes valuations of NHL teams for the past 4 years (so sue me, this may not be scientific, or to the penny accurate) and noticed the following:

2008:
Revenue: $2.75 Billion
Operating Income (profit): $141.6 Million
18 of 30 teams in the black
Assume 100% revenue share: $4.7M/team

2009:
Revenue: $2.82 Billion
Operating Income (profit): $183.5 Million
16 of 30 teams in the black
Assume 100% revenue share: $6.1M/team

2010:
Revenue: $2.93 Billion
Operating Income (profit): $160 Million
14 of 30 teams in the black
Assume 100% revenue share: $5.3 M/team

2011:
Revenue: $3.09 Billion
Operating Income (profit): $126.5 Million
12 of 30 teams in the black
Assume 100% revenue share: $4.2 M/team

So, both sides are right. Revenues have continued to climb. Unfortunately, league wide profits have dropped (although the 2009 blip is interesting) overall compared to 4 years ago.

My point here, is that I don't understand why they're tying player salaries to HRR, when they should be tying any increases in the cap to increases in per-team profits. That would make sense to me. I'd offer the NHLPA an immediate 55% share for 2013, then drop 1.25% for the next 4 years. At the 50/50 mark, we establish the baseline salary cap and floor, and then for the next 5 years work on a sliding scale based on per-team-profits. So, if a league wide average of profit goes up, the salary cap goes up. If it goes down, the cap goes down. Simple stuff.

Then the big argument is how the increases will work, at which point, I'd declare a 50/50 split on that as well. If league wide profits go up 10%, the owners pocket that, but the salary cap goes up by 5% (50% of the 10% increase).

Basically, by increasing player salaries congruently with revenues is driving the league to bankruptcy (4 year path, consistently 2 additional teams that fail to make profits; overall $/team going down (or at least remaining constant). It doesn't seem like sound management – on either side.

But, what the hell do I know? Not like I know how to put together a championship winning fantasy hockey team... that I didn't have to buy... that runs on millions of fake hockey dollars... (snicker)...

yes... yes, I'll be flogging that dead horse for quite some time...
Image
The Heatwave will return in 2015!
User avatar
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:33 pm
Location: Stony Plain, Alberta
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:37 am
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/20 ... 08211.html


Ugh. Sooooooo bummed right now.
Image
User avatar
Posts: 488
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Edmonton
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:56 pm
chucker wrote:http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL/2012/09/18/20208211.html


Ugh. Sooooooo bummed right now.


I am sure that all the players who are losing their jobs overseas would have no problem coming over.
User avatar
General Manager
Posts: 3157
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 am
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:36 pm
My first thought was "oh lord, I couldn't bear watching anyone but NHL-caliber players".. but the more I think about it.. I might not mind it. These would be guys who give a shit to the max... trying to make a name for themselves, playing their asses off.

I would hate for the Oilers to try and sluff off the replacements as the real deal and charge the ol' lady the same price for her seasons tickets though.. or force her to watch that or forfeit her tickets.
User avatar
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:01 pm
Location: Canuckleville
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:23 pm
Racki wrote:My first thought was "oh lord, I couldn't bear watching anyone but NHL-caliber players".. but the more I think about it.. I might not mind it. These would be guys who give a shit to the max... trying to make a name for themselves, playing their asses off.


Exactly what I thought. I mean, except Hallsy who always plays like his hair's on fire, and Ebs who is, consistently, totally sick...but otherwise I've thought more and more often that a lot of players look like they'd rather be golfing. I find the game is becoming less interesting to watch overall. Depends on who's playing sometimes. Philly-Pittsburgh for instance have quite the intriguing rivalry. (I admit my declining interest may have something to do with our last-place finish. :? )

Racki wrote:
I would hate for the Oilers to try and sluff off the replacements as the real deal and charge the ol' lady the same price for her seasons tickets though.. or force her to watch that or forfeit her tickets.


Yeah that wouldn't go over well methinks.
Image
the sultriest singer in the federal league
triforce siggy courtesy adrianl of the OMB
User avatar
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:33 pm
Location: Stony Plain, Alberta
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:26 pm
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407490

Urgency just entered the room. About f'n time.
Image
User avatar
Coach
Posts: 1514
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:31 am
Location: Oslo, Norway
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:09 pm
That smells better than the shite they've been presenting so far. Good news.
General Manager of the VIKINGS

NORACK CUP CHAMPION 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16
FHL PLAYOFF CHAMPION 2013-14, 2014-15
User avatar
General Manager
Posts: 3157
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:37 am
PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 5:20 pm
There is hope of a full season yet! I guess that means I have to actually finish this pool site stuff then.. damn it! :P (kidding)
User avatar
Posts: 371
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:49 am
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:17 am
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=643570

NHL PROPOSAL TO SAVE 82-GAME SEASON

1. Term:

• Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

2. HRR Accounting:

• Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

3. Applicable Players' Share:

• For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

4. Payroll Range:

• Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

• 2012/13 Payroll Range
Lower Limit = $43.9 Million
Midpoint = $51.9 Million
Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

• Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

• All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

• Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

• In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

6. System Changes:

• Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

• Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

• Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

• Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

• Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

• Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

• NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

7. Revenue Sharing:

• NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

• At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

• The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

• For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

• Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

• Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3(d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

8. Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

• Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

9. No "Rollback":

• The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

10. Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

• The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.) Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.
Image
PreviousNext

Return to Other NHL Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron