There will be a strike

[tantalum]

Bang on Pot.

The union just put some nice words around things that it sounds nice and friendly and on the surface most people will (and have) say "that's not bad!". When in fact it completely destroys the fundamental framework of the current CBA.

There aren't many fans around that would suggest the current CBA is pretty decent but it needs some tweaking. The owners proposal was based on working within the current framework and tweaking. Sure they took a hard line first offer in making everything less favourable to the players than the current CBA but it wasn't an act of war at all. It was this is what we are concerned about and if we had our druthers this is what would be ideal to the owners. By the same token the players just presented their ideal but the reason this is a much bigger problem and a bigger declaration of war is because they have scrapped the fundamental framework of the current CBA completely...that is not just the hard cap but a LINKED hard cap.

I understand why they did it...the only hope they have of not taking a bath yet again is by trying to split the rich teams from the weaker sisters. The problem is there aren't enough rich teams making money hand over fist to matter in the first place when it comes to voting and the bigger problem is that most of those rich teams know that greater yearly profits and franchise values are going to come from a linked hard cap system. This was the only attempt for the players had to try to get into the drivers seat. I expect the NHL to come back to the table and say point blank that without a hard cap and linkage there will be no deal. Period. When the players are willing to deal in those terms and get down to business they will be happy to engage them in discussions around hockey related revenues, revenue sharing, expansion money, contract lengths, etc etc etc.

The thing the players need to know and should know is that they need the NHL teams, for the most part the owners don't. That puts the owners in the driver's seat. I personally think anyone who is encouraged that the players proposal will result in hockey any time soon hasn't been paying attention to what the owners have been wanting for the last decade and/or don't see what the players proposal actually is.

[Zedlee]

It is a joke proposal and the reason it is a joke proposal because everything in it is meant to drive a wedge between wealthy franchise and the ones that aren't.

I don't see that at all.

The NHLPA has identified and is exploiting the "wedge" that has always existed between rich and poor teams. It's called "revenue discrepancy".

The NHL decided to go into non-traditional markets and now some of those teams are losing money and can't compete. A serious problem. One solution would be to fold the weaker franchises, but neither the NHL or the players want that, for their own reasons. So the issue is how to help the weaker teams survive.

The NHL solution of cutting costs across the board puts the burden of saving the teams entirely on the players and generates bigger profits for the stronger teams. How is that fair to the players? It isn't.

The NHLPA solution of greater revenue sharing goes a lot further towards solving the problem. Some combination of more revenue sharing and a tweaking of the % of revenue going to the players has to be the answer.

The NHLPA solution is a more reasonable and fair approach than what the NHL has proposed IMO.

[tantalum]

It is a joke proposal and the reason it is a joke proposal because everything in it is meant to drive a wedge between wealthy franchise and the ones that aren't.

I don't see that at all.

The NHLPA has identified and is exploiting the "wedge" that has always existed between rich and poor teams. It's called "revenue discrepancy".

The NHL decided to go into non-traditional markets and now some of those teams are losing money and can't compete. A serious problem. One solution would be to fold the weaker franchises, but neither the NHL or the players want that, for their own reasons. So the issue is how to help the weaker teams survive.

The NHL solution of cutting costs across the board puts the burden of saving the teams entirely on the players and generates bigger profits for the stronger teams. How is that fair to the players? It isn't.

The NHLPA solution of greater revenue sharing goes a lot further towards solving the problem. Some combination of more revenue sharing and a tweaking of the % of revenue going to the players has to be the answer.

The NHLPA solution is a more reasonable and fair approach than what the NHL has proposed IMO.

It is not a more reasonable approach as it turfs the fundamentals of the last CBA that the league needs to operate. Things haven't magically changed in the last 8 years that a linked hard cap, cost certainty if you will, isn't necessary.

I don't disagree there needs to be some revenue sharing but while the PA likes to say they've kept the hard cap they haven't. They've removed the linkage which is fundamental to the system operating and made it possible to completely and utterly go back to what things were before. It's not a hard cap. It's a soft cap because you can purchase cap space from another team, pay cash for draft picks etc. It's a horrible proposal.

The NHL provided an offer that was based on the current CBA which everyone pretty much agrees is fundamentally pretty fair. Owners have done reasonably well with it and the players certainly have as well. It needs some tweaking. Some loopholes and PA inflators to the cap have resulted in a somewhat unanticipated imbalance. The NHL proposal was a pie in the sky proposal but it went towards addressing those imbalances. And yes revenue sharing on the backs of the owners needs to be a part of that...that is where the PA should be and will likely end up negotiating for. If I had to guess it is something that the league is happy to move from and negotiate.

The PA proposal is trying to make an end run around linkage AND the hard cap....you know the things 90% of the fans said was necessary last lockout but now all of a sudden deem evil. The league will not negotiate a system without a hard cap or linkage. The PA proposal from what I read only has a hard cap in a global sense that the NHL can only spend X amount total in cap space....it isn't a team hard cap, but a team soft cap. That's horrible for the league as a whole.

[Boston Canucker]

It is a joke proposal and the reason it is a joke proposal because everything in it is meant to drive a wedge between wealthy franchise and the ones that aren't.
.

Well, of course it does, but it didn't create that wedge, it already exists, which is patently obvious...you think Aquilini wants this lockout? please. The proposal will be rejected by Bettman, most certainly, but it'll prove the basis for how they end up working towards a deal. Yes, of course, there will be features the league rejects, but it is a far far more serious proposal than that of the league which said, "here, you guys give up everything and we'll do nothing." A joke proposal, there it is.

If the league does not seriously address revenue sharing then we'll be back here again and again. The PA proposal is demanding the the owners, amongst themselves, also be part of the solution this. Yes, the players chose (whatever choice means for a kid who dreams of and plays hockey since he was a kid, but fine, a "choice) to play the sport, but the owners - often as vanity purchases - chose to buy these teams, chose to authorize their gms to hand out these contracts etc....They all got themselves into this situation, and they are all going to have to work there way out of it. Bettman wants to be a solution that is all on the players; that ain't going to happen this time. And the players' risk is real as it is in the trajectory of potential earning (or lack of same) over the lifetime of their contracts. It may not seem like a big deal to us, who likely don't earn in that range, but it's not a game to them, it's their profession and the terms of the CBA will define the parameters of their potential contracts, and this will contain rewards and, yes, risks. The players are the talent, no one is buying Canuck jerseys with Aquilini printed on the back, and the owners need these players as much as the players need the owners. But as I said, we'll likely never agree on this, we'll see how it plays out.

[Potatoe1]

I understand why they did it...the only hope they have of not taking a bath yet again is by trying to split the rich teams from the weaker sisters.

I dont think this offer will split anyone.

It's bad for both the rich and poor owners.

Neither group will want to remove linkage.

[tantalum]

Well, of course it does, but it didn't create that wedge, it already exists, which is patently obvious...you think Aquilini wants this lockout? please.

yes because a linked hard cap system provides him with more profits and better franchise value when successful times are lean which happens to every club.

"here, you guys give up everything and we'll do nothing."

I know you don't see it but that is EXACTLY what the PA did as well. What did they give up? Not contracts. Not a piece of the pie (artificially slowing salary growth irrespective of the revenue growth or decline is giving up nothing). Not anything. Hell they didn't even bother doing the usual throw the rookies under the bus thing they usually do.

They all got themselves into this situation so they need to work themselves out of it...sure but that is what there proposal was based around. The PA proposal was about putting them deeper into the hole. That's all it was. And it won't work. The PA either continues to accept a linked hard cap based on about 50% of the revenues or they go find themselves a job in a butcher shop. The PA proposla will form nothing but the basis of an continued lockout.

[Potatoe1]

but it is a far far more serious proposal than that of the league which said, "here, you guys give up everything and we'll do nothing." A joke proposal, there it is.

What are the players offering up in their proposal?

Here is how the "savings" appear to be structured.

Told NHLPA's proposal would cut players' share of HRR from 57% to 54%. After 3 seasons, players would have option for 4th year back at 57%.

In a nutshell they give up roughly 3% over 3 years and then are right back to 57%. That 57% is also unlinked and is thus only based on the players own projections.

More importantly however they have removed their escrow tax which is what an absolute cornerstone of the last CBA negotiation (and the part of the CBA which they detested above all else even the hard cap).

The PA proposal is demanding the the owners, amongst themselves, also be part of the solution this.

It's funny that the players make a big point on revenue sharing when their proposal removes what is currently the biggest source of shared revenue (escrow).

[Potatoe1]

Sounds like the PA's proposal ditches the hard cap as well......

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/statu ... 9777428481

I'm told a luxury tax is part of the NHLPA's new proposal. Cap won't move much under the deal, but some teams can go above and others below

[tantalum]

Sounds like the PA's proposal ditches the hard cap as well......

https://twitter.com/reporterchris/statu ... 9777428481

I'm told a luxury tax is part of the NHLPA's new proposal. Cap won't move much under the deal, but some teams can go above and others below

I had heard conflicting reports on if there was a luxury tax or not. So now it looks like there was and the hard cap is not only softened by lack of linkage from a player salary point of view but also softened by a luxury tax, the ability to buy cap space and the ability to pay cash for draft picks. I figured something was up based on Fehr making a comment that was something like "it would be wrong to interpret our proposal as not having a hard cap". The hard cap they (maybe) proposed is a league wide type of cap. 30 teams x 70 mil = 2.1B but that is a total cap. One team may be able to spend 100M as long as another is at 40 mil. It's just a semi-creative, somewhat friendly sounding way to say "remember that shit a decade ago that was killing the league? We want that back".

The owners lost a year of hockey because they wanted a linked hard cap and nothing but a linked hard cap. They aren't going to turn around and jettison that 8 years later.

On your point above about escrow...the PA has done a great job of selling that as being on the backs of the players when in actual fact the money in that escrow fund above the 57% share is not theirs to begin with.

I expect the owners to come back and say you either want a job or you don't. If you want one these are the basic terms and what we are willing to negotiate around. If you don't then in a few months time you will.

[Topper]

knee cap the commies

[Boston Canucker]

knee cap the commies

Some of the older owners already have bad knees, be cruel to make them worse.

[Potatoe1]

On your point above about escrow...the PA has done a great job of selling that as being on the backs of the players when in actual fact the money in that escrow fund above the 57% share is not theirs to begin with.

I just think it's funny to hear the players talk about 250 mill in revenue sharing. Thats chump change compared to the escrow that is currently being shared.

70 mill x30 teams and I have heard that escrow is something like 20%. By my math that is somewhere between 400 and 450 mill, so in essence there will be even less shared revenue.

The players proposal at first glance looks absolutely dreadful for the struggling franchises. Not only will the revenue sharing pool be far smaller but the rich teams will drive up the price of free agents now that there is far more cap flexibility.

But hey, the players are just here to help, they have a solution

[tantalum]

I can't find the link but there is an article calling this a wolf in sheeps clothing type of offer. The difference between this offer and the owners offer is to the tune of $1.75 Billion dollars to the players (and a guaranteed lockout in 4 years)

That article also points out that in the league offer they already increased revenue sharing up from $170 mil to $200 mil. The owners have signalled they are willing to negotiate that by increasing it. The revenue sharing gulf ultimately isn't a big one though the mechanism likely needs to be figured out. Of course the PA doesn't want anyone to know that the league recognized revenue sharing as an issue in their proposal.

The lack of a true hard cap and linkage is the real gulf and why the PA proposal is actually a non-starter rather than a harsh view of the world that the owners proposal was. If the players are willing to throw away money in the attempt to get rid of that by all means have at 'er. I just don't think it will work. It was far too key for the owners last time around to discard that. I don't think the dynamics of the group have changed to the point where it is no longer important to 2/3 of the ownership group (I also have to imagine the same rules are in place for Bettman...any turn around in strategy or consideration of new system requires a 70% vote from the BOGs. )

As the article I can't find the link to points out the only reason Bettman didn't dismiss the PA proposal out of hand was at some level the word hard cap and working within a hard cap system was used. Even if in fact that hard cap was an unlinked soft cap.

Who knows the end goal for Fehr in all of this may be to get the owners to accept a 50-53% type of number as next CBA bargaining will start from that number rather than a 45ish% number.

[Potatoe1]

Yeah I was pissed when I read the owners proposal but the more I think about it the more I see the players proposal as being much more divisive.

The owners lost a full year of hockey to get a hard cap with linkage and they will lose another to keep it.

It's one thing to take the current system so that one side gets more or less of the pie, but with this proposal the players are in effect trying to fight the 2004 conflict over again.

That will be a non starter from the owners side and I doubt we see any more negotiating. Both sides will just sit until someone blinks.

[Strangelove]

knee cap the commies

... whilst pushing hard for a "no play, no pay" clause.