Potatoe1 wrote:tantalum wrote:It would essentially mean that no owner is going to lose money if there is a season long lockout.
I don't think that is accurate.
200 mill is around 8 mill per team. For most teams that probably wont cover their non-salary overhead.
They still have to pay their Lease, coaching staff, business operations, training staff, hockey opp's etc.
I think the most profitable model for most teams is a short season + full playoff, I don't think missing a whole season under the current CBA makes much sense for many teams.
NHL proposed a 6 year term today. Players Share: 2012/13 - 51.6% 2013/14 - 50.5% 2014/15 - 49.6% 2015/16 - 50% 2016/17 - 50% 2017/18 - 50%
Proposed Salary Caps: all projected and fixed: 2012/13 - $58M 2013/14 -$60M. 2014/15-$62M. 2015/16-$64.2M. 2016/17 - $67.6M 2017/18 - $71.1M
coco_canuck wrote:The latest proposal by the owners should help talks gain some more traction.
FAN wrote:coco_canuck wrote:$58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.
Not without a salary roll-back.
Boston Canucker wrote:I agree. We don't know all the details yet, but it seems to be a step in a better direction, interesting that the nhl seemed to use the PA's framework of 3 yrs set cap then back to a % system. I expect the PA will reject, as part of the negotiating process. Yes, 58 mill for next year would mean cutbacks, but it's a negotiating position, and I think a 50/50 split is what the long run aim is of the owners' anyway, players will probably eventually accept it, or something close to it. This negotiation feels very different than 04. I do think there'll be a lockout, but if the NHL's proposal is looking as it seems from reports, this tennis match seems to be on and they'll find a way to it, but probably not for a while. Jan 1 start, still sticking with my call...I'd love to be wrong, on the earlier side of course. We'll see what happens.
coco_canuck wrote:FAN wrote:coco_canuck wrote:It would be an absolute waste if the lockout lasts past December.
For all the teams that save money in the first couple months of the season, just as many teams will lose out on significant revenue over that time.
The players have indicated they're willing to give in a bit, and as long as the owners don't go for the kill to reinforce their power-grip over the players, a deal shouldn't take that long to figure out.
Boston Canucker wrote:I agree, if they're close. Ideally, be great if they got it done asap. In reading up, I did read something about NHL redefining what counts as HRR, one source saying it could pull 400 mill out of HRR. Again, not sure the truth of that, but if so, then it makes the proposal more problematic..."yes, you can have half, but we've scooped out a bunch of the pie, enjoy!" then again, all subject to negotiation as well. I guess now that I'm on my third Bettman lockout as a fan (or close to one) I refuse to get suckered into being optimistic about an early start...be great to be wrong about that
coco_canuck wrote:FAN wrote:coco_canuck wrote:$58M cap for next season isn't going to happen.
Not without a salary roll-back.
Well, the salary roll-back is simply hidden because the players would have to make major escrow payments, which would in effect be a salary roll-back.
The problem without having an up-front roll-back with a $14M drop in the salary cap from the current figure is the teams over the proposed cap having to unload salary.
Considering that more than half of the teams in the NHL currently have payrolls above $58M, that cap figure is simply unmanageable, and is nothing more than a negotiation point.
When a deal is negotiated, the cap for the up coming season will not be below $65M IMO.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:If there is a strike, what happens to players who have like 1 year left on their deals? Burr and Edler come to mind. If this whole season is lost, will Burr and Edler automatically become UFAs in the 13-14 season?