There will be a strike

[rats19]

speaking of non-inductees: Steve Miller

This here's a story about Donny Fehr and Gary B
Two smart fuckers with nothin' better to do
Than sit around the house, get rich, and wreck the league
And here is what happened when they had too much greed

They headed down to, ooh, old El Paso
That's where they ran into a great big hassle
Donny Fehr shot a man while robbing his castle
Gary B took the money and run

Go on take the money and run
Go on take the money and run
Go on take the money and run
Go on take the money and run

[Zedlee]

Just heard Fehr's response on the radio...seems pretty level headed and reasonable to me. Owners should honor the contracts you signed and split revenues 50/50 going forward. The owners are simply trying strong arm tactics to cut the amount the players take. I don't see why the players should give anything back at this point.

[Aaronp18]

Just heard Fehr's response on the radio...seems pretty level headed and reasonable to me. Owners should honor the contracts you signed and split revenues 50/50 going forward. The owners are simply trying strong arm tactics to cut the amount the players take. I don't see why the players should give anything back at this point.

Yup, apparently the third offer the NHLPA gave had HHR at 50/50 as long as owners honoured contracts already in place.

This seems perfectly logical to me.

But of course we're dealing with the little prick!

[Potatoe1]

Owners should honor the contracts you signed and split revenues 50/50 going forward.

Who knows how this offer was really presented though.

If the players truly are willing to have their share reduced down to 50% as long as contracts are protected all they need to do is make a proposal based around the previous CBA which would insure it happens.

If revenues are expected to grow by 5% every year then the percentage of their share could drop by 2 to 3 percent every year down to 50%

57, 55, 52, 50, 50, 50.

Simple right.

Cap stays close to the 70 mill and escrow payments stay at the low level they have been at.

Why didn't the PA make that type of proposal if "all they want to do is get the money they agreed too".

As long as the PA keeps making offers built around a different type of system (i.e. the linked hard cap the NHL currently has) there won't be any real negotiations.

[Potatoe1]

Yup, apparently the third offer the NHLPA gave had HHR at 50/50 as long as owners honoured contracts already in place.

This seems perfectly logical to me.

Again though, this sounds like it removes linkage.

Keep in mind that under the old agreement players contracts were actually never honored at their exact value as the players lost some money in escrow every year.

All 3 of the players offered again sounded like they removed the link between real salary and actual revenue and are simply based on estimated revenue.

That type of system is never going to be acceptable to the owners as they more or less lost a season to get the linked hard cap.

[ukcanuck]

Owners should honor the contracts you signed and split revenues 50/50 going forward.

Who knows how this offer was really presented though.

If the players truly are willing to have their share reduced down to 50% as long as contracts are protected all they need to do is make a proposal based around the previous CBA which would insure it happens.

If revenues are expected to grow by 5% every year then the percentage of their share could drop by 2 to 3 percent every year down to 50%

57, 55, 52, 50, 50, 50.

Simple right.

Cap stays close to the 70 mill and escrow payments stay at the low level they have been at.

Why didn't the PA make that type of proposal if "all they want to do is get the money they agreed too".

As long as the PA keeps making offers built around a different type of system (i.e. the linked hard cap the NHL currently has) there won't be any real negotiations.

The point is they don't want to take a reduction at all, the precious CBA, the one rammed down their throats, was working fine for them. It's Bettman who claims they need a change so its up to him to propose a reasonable alternative. So far nothing has been reasonable, beginning with the undeniable fact that they the owners and their managers signed contracts in good faith and now want to weasel out of them. Nothing Bettman has said publicly has been specific nor on topic. The guy has been nothing short of a snake oil salesman. The way he's going about getting his deal says volumes. Every step of the way in this sham has been at the point if a gun. Sign my deal or lose. This is the best offer you'll get, take it or leave it. Take this deal or well cancel games. Take this deal or we lose the 82 game sched... It's so transparent I can't believe anyone is falling for it. the original six owners and Bettman want it all on a platter and will not have the players making a contribution to the business other than their sweat.

[ukcanuck]

Keep in mind that under the old agreement players contracts were actually never honored at their exact value as the players lost some money in escrow every year.

That was bad enough, but it was the understanding that was agreed to and part of the contract players signed. Bettmans new offer takes even more of that value away and would see the owners get out of the actual dollars their managers agreed to pay.

[Potatoe1]

The point is they don't want to take a reduction at all, the precious CBA, the one rammed down their throats, was working fine for them.

You are 100% correct and people need to cut through the PR fluf and understand this.

The players are not willing to take a lower percentage unless linkage is removed from the new CBA.

It's Bettman who claims they need a change so its up to him to propose a reasonable alternative. So far nothing has been reasonable, beginning with the undeniable fact that they the owners and their managers signed contracts in good faith and now want to weasel out of them.

And on this point you are 100% wrong.

The deals signed under the old agreement were never 100% guaranteed as they were all subject to reductions based on escrow. Escrow has apparently been as high as 20% and as low as 1% so the players have never actually received their entire salary.

That is the part of the old CBA they hate the most and the main thing they want changed.

Nothing Bettman has said publicly has been specific nor on topic.

Incorrect again.

He released the most recent proposal in it's entirety.

The way he's going about getting his deal says volumes. Every step of the way in this sham has been at the point if a gun. Sign my deal or lose. This is the best offer you'll get, take it or leave it. Take this deal or well cancel games. Take this deal or we lose the 82 game sched...

Unfortunately that is exactly what he should be doing as it serves the best interest of the people who hired him.

Ditto in Fehr.

I actually believe it would be a big mistake for him to negotiate based on the owners most recent offer.

[Potatoe1]

Keep in mind that under the old agreement players contracts were actually never honored at their exact value as the players lost some money in escrow every year.

That was bad enough, but it was the understanding that was agreed to and part of the contract players signed. Bettmans new offer takes even more of that value away and would see the owners get out of the actual dollars their managers agreed to pay.

I agree.

Under the current offer escrow would be 12% higher then expected and that money would be returned to the players over 3 years.

Crappy way to do it and a kick in the nuts for current players. I actually think it was silly to even propose it.

That however is not what is standing in the way of a deal despite what the players want everyone to believe.

The players don't want any linkage they want a system where the cap is fixed at a specific dollar amount. The fixed amounts are all based around specific growth rates of 5 to 8 percent year over year.

That is a non starter for the owners so offers built around that system will be immediately rejected.

BTW when Betman says the players offer's saw them get "more then 57% in the first year" that's because if the cap is no longer linked they get their full salary with no escrow reductions.

[ukcanuck]

Keep in mind that under the old agreement players contracts were actually never honored at their exact value as the players lost some money in escrow every year.

That was bad enough, but it was the understanding that was agreed to and part of the contract players signed. Bettmans new offer takes even more of that value away and would see the owners get out of the actual dollars their managers agreed to pay.

I agree.

Under the current offer escrow would be 12% higher then expected and that money would be returned to the players over 3 years.

Crappy way to do it and a kick in the nuts for current players. I actually think it was silly to even propose it.

That however is not what is standing in the way of a deal despite what the players want everyone to believe.

The players don't want any linkage they want a system where the cap is fixed at a specific dollar amount. The fixed amounts are all based around specific growth rates of 5 to 8 percent year over year.

That is a non starter for the owners so offers built around that system will be immediately rejected.

BTW when Betman says the players offer's saw them get "more then 57% Keep in mind that under the old agreement players contracts were actually never honored at their exact value as the players lost some money in escrow every year. in the first year" that's because if the cap is no longer linked they get their full salary with no escrow reductions.

Let's say you are right and linkage is the sticking point. Isn't fair to say that before you can link the salary cap to revenue, you've got to define that revenue, so far as we've argued before what constitutes HRR fluctuates wildly depending on who you talk to.
Take luxury boxes for example, the sale of the box is HRR but if the team sells the box on time the extra interest is not HRR that's a lot when multiplied by 30 teams x whatever number of boxes there are. Now if that money and other sources similar aren't in HRR then a higher percentage makes up for that.

So basically Bettman can have it all linked with 50% and full accounting of all sources of revenue put up for consideration or he can have a lesser piece of the pie and a stricter definition of HRR.

[Aaronp18]

Again though, this sounds like it removes linkage.

If linkage is removed I see the issue. Here's some detaile Aaron Ward tweeted:

Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl

NHLPA offers,big picture- 1)Set dollar values in Years 1-2-3 for player compensation.Years 4-5,value set at whatever is higher(50% of HRR or year 3 number) and 50/50 in effect. 2)Players hang on to current compensation BUT only take 24.7% of all growth.At NHL estimated growth of 5%,over 5 years you get to 50/50. 3) Day 1 starts at 50/50,remove 12.28% only to SET cap,benefits,escrow (estimated 87%) number only
Players make full face value of negotiated contracts. #TSN

Don't completely understand any of this, maybe others have a better idea what he means.

[Potatoe1]

Let's say you are right and linkage is the sticking point. Isn't fair to say that before you can link the salary cap to revenue, you've got to define that revenue,

The formula for HHR has been constant since the previous lock out. Changes to the definition of HHR really aren't a major sticking point, although I'm sure both sides would like to make some changes, all of which are negotiable once a framework is agreed too.

I sound like a broken record here but the owners want the current system with the players share to coming down from 57% to around 50%, and the players want to remove linkage.

That is the whole dispute, everything else is just fluff.

[Hockey Widow]

Getting deals honoured is a big problem. For me moving forward I would restrict contract terms to the length of the CBA. Eventually we will have all contracts expiring when the CBA does and this problem will no longer exist.

I actually don't have a problem with the contracts being tweaked to comply with a new CBA. There are a handful of players that benefited from when they were able to do an extension. My problem is that it appears the contracts were not singed in good faith as the owners had every expectation that they would be reduced and don't want to honour the deals. So give players a choice to void their deals and renegotiate under a new CBA. See if they all leave the teams they signed with. I bet that makes a few owners change their mind too.

[Potatoe1]

Again though, this sounds like it removes linkage.

If linkage is removed I see the issue. Here's some detaile Aaron Ward tweeted:

Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl

NHLPA offers,big picture- 1)Set dollar values in Years 1-2-3 for player compensation.Years 4-5,value set at whatever is higher(50% of HRR or year 3 number) and 50/50 in effect. 2)Players hang on to current compensation BUT only take 24.7% of all growth.At NHL estimated growth of 5%,over 5 years you get to 50/50. 3) Day 1 starts at 50/50,remove 12.28% only to SET cap,benefits,escrow (estimated 87%) number only
Players make full face value of negotiated contracts. #TSN

Don't completely understand any of this, maybe others have a better idea what he means.

Basically year 1-2-3 are set cap years i.e 70 mill or what ever. Years 3, 4, and 5 the players get the set amount + a fixed amount of the projected growth.

In other words no linkage. We would know what the cap will be for the next 6 years and even if the league struggles to grow the cap continues to rise.

All of the PA's proposals are simply different ways to get to the same numbers.

they came in with 3 but it could have been 10.

Cap holds for a few years at 70 mill then rises sharply based on projected growth. They then go into the next CBA negotiations with the whole concept of linkage being a distant memory.

[Blob Mckenzie]

Have to agree with UK on that one. The NHL is a 3.3 billion dollar industry. To put that in context the NBA is only 4.3 bill and MLB is 7.7. That means the NHL is roughly 2/3rds the size of the NBA and half the size of MLB.

Say what you want about basketball but if you are half the size of MLB you are a serious, serious entity

Problem is that UK beaked off about the NHLPA and the league sitting out two years and coming back strong. The NHL built off the last lockout and for the most part the game improved. The economy was also a fuck of a lot stronger in 05 then the mess we all see today. Most of us are living it.... As a person who works in the mfg world my income has taken a 20 K hit this year alone and talking to most of my friends, firemen, cops, tradesmen etc they are all taking a haircut of 10 - 20 % and they all have families to support. They could give two fucks about the NHL at this point. Sure i'm talking about a cross section of ten to fifteen people...... but these are all people who LOVE the game and have played it most or all of their lives. Multiply that by the other three or four people in their house.

People are ambivelant about it this time. They got boned once before and if they deep six another entire season or two like he says the 3.3 billion dollar industry will be worth a fraction of that. Add in the fact that the NHL is by far the most gate driven sport of the "big 4 " and I use that term loosely, and you have a recipe for the house of cards to collapse.

A few years ago the Yankees personal TV deal ( I want to say YES TV) used to be worth 200 mill a season. With that alone they could hit their payroll let alone what their ticket reveue and souvenirs and concessions would bring in.