one of the links here said it was for the nhlpa to discuss the proposal. they said they just recieved it and have not had time to fully review it or crunch the numbers.
well ... at least there is a drop dead date on a full season ...
Players become FA's at 28 or after 8 years of service
ELC's would be 4 yrs
Max contracts would be 5 years
Arbitration still in existence
c'mon lets do this !
yeah the 5 pm is a conference call with the reps for NHLPA
For the ones who had a notion, a notion deep inside
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
Season will end later than the NBA Finals. Although it's almost to that point already. :roll:
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Season will end later than the NBA Finals. Although it's almost to that point already. :roll:
I think the season would end at the same time....Bettman said it works out to an extra game every five weeks....not so bad when you look at it that way.
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
Season will end later than the NBA Finals. Although it's almost to that point already. :roll:
I think the season would end at the same time....Bettman said it works out to an extra game every five weeks....not so bad when you look at it that way.
i can see that being the case....every season flyers seem to play like 1 game a week for the first month. :fp:
Season will end later than the NBA Finals. Although it's almost to that point already. :roll:
I think the season would end at the same time....Bettman said it works out to an extra game every five weeks....not so bad when you look at it that way.
i can see that being the case....every season flyers seem to play like 1 game a week for the first month. :fp:
ya, a guy starts to count on games every second night....when you go four days without a game there are some serious withdrawl symptoms.
The Oil might get a home opener if they started on Nov.2....but every year we have an extended road trip in November while the rodeo is in town (really)....so we'd have a big road trip to start the year :eh:
Revenue sharing to be decided by a panel of NHL reps and NHLPA.
5 year contracts
Cant hide contracts in minors
2 year Entry level contracts
Can eat salary on trades
Salary cant move more than 5% off cap hit.
Teams can have their $70 million salary this year, but need to adjust down for next season (unsure how that is going to work with no roll-back).
Things I wonder about: Realignment, Olympics participation, NHLPA say in relocation issues (likely none), RFA rules.
drivingrl: "Will I ever get to meet Gwen Stefani?"
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
MCKENZIE: NHL PROPOSAL WASN'T MET WITH GREAT ENTHUSIASM
The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.
In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"
- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."
On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:
- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."
- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."
- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."
The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.
- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
DarrenDreger: Interesting: top 10 $ earning teams will pay up to 50% of revenue sharing pie in NHL proposal.
so the top 33% contribute 50%.....why is that ridiculous?
Just more of the same crap as before. The successful teams still catering to the small market teams that cant hold their own.
It's not up to the big markets to keep certain franchises from folding because they cant pay the bills.
yes it is.
The league as a whole needs the teams in struggling markets to survive. They took the expansion/relocation fees and didnt complain. It is terrible for the league that they have teams in danger of folding. As it is, they cant find owners who care to invest. The league becomes more attractive to prospective owners/businessmen when teams arent rotating bankrupcy
Also remember who is driving the negotiation: Ed Snider (Phi) and Jacobs (Bos). They know what they are doing and are willingly putting forth the revenue sharing. Phoenix boards up and Snider's networks lose market share, Jacobs' concessions Delaware North lose out, etc. I have also pointed out before, teams like Buffalo can and do sell out the entire season (at decently hiked ticket prices) and still lose millions.
i like that they are negotiating through the media ... it almost feels like the "fans" are key to this conflict ...
As long as they are negotiating, period.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
so the top 33% contribute 50%.....why is that ridiculous?
Just more of the same crap as before. The successful teams still catering to the small market teams that cant hold their own.
It's not up to the big markets to keep certain franchises from folding because they cant pay the bills.
yes it is.
The league as a whole needs the teams in struggling markets to survive. They took the expansion/relocation fees and didnt complain. It is terrible for the league that they have teams in danger of folding. As it is, they cant find owners who care to invest. The league becomes more attractive to prospective owners/businessmen when teams arent rotating bankrupcy
Also remember who is driving the negotiation: Ed Snider (Phi) and Jacobs (Bos). They know what they are doing and are willingly putting forth the revenue sharing. Phoenix boards up and Snider's networks lose market share, Jacobs' concessions Delaware North lose out, etc. I have also pointed out before, teams like Buffalo can and do sell out the entire season (at decently hiked ticket prices) and still lose millions.
Thats where my major issue is. During Bettmans great expansion of the 90's, he was basically authorizing all of these added teams just to collect the expansion fees in order to bolster the NHL's bottom line.
I think a subtraction of at least 2 teams would be a plus. It would be a nightmare for the NHLPA as far as guys losing jobs, but the talent pool in the league would be stronger while getting rid of franchises that are bleeding money.
And so you see, I have come to doubt All that I once held as true I stand alone without beliefs The only truth I know is you.
He executes the wishes of the NHL member franchise owners. Those owners collected hundreds of Millions from the expansion/relocation fees.
This also created a meaningful footprint in the US which is integral for the maximum amount of television revenue.
Participation in hockey overall is up in the South and it is growing. We are seeing US born players from all over the United States as opposed to a few specific regions.
To me contraction isnt an option. The talent is not watered down at all. The sport is being played by way more kids than ever before, and also the inclusion of European players makes the overall talent level many times what it was when there were 21 teams. Contraction would make the NHL completely second-rate in the public's eye and it would also cut down on overall television revenue.
I do think that Phoenix may move if they cant iron that out. Columbus could be another dire situation unless they can start winning.
The NHL will likely try the Pacific Northwest and possibly Houston. Quebec City may eventually get a team and there are always rumblings of a team just North of Toronto.
But overall, I believe the NHL is best served being as socialized as possible. Keeping a cap in place and making most/all franchises profitable.
I agree MayDay....
Without some form of revenue sharing, the league would have likely lost 3-4 Canadian teams in the mid-90's when dollar parity was an issue. Lots of storied franchises struggle while in rebuilding phases. Doesn't mean they should fold. It would hurt the entire league.
You can't look at the NHL as a collection of businesses...it is one business with separate branches. You pull your presence in any one market, and it tarnishes the image of the entire business and opens the door to competition (ie: WHA).
You're also spot on that it's vital to the growth of the sport to maintain a presence in non-hockey markets....even modest support means a lot of kids taking up the game.
And I agree that the talent pool is not watered down. That was a valid point right after expansion, but no longer...
Comments
well ... at least there is a drop dead date on a full season ...
i read it somewhere..... maybe you're right
im being overly hopeful
i would say there's reason for hope ... the players want to play ... if this deal is anywhere remotely reasonable - they will take it ...
the nhlpa will be discussing how to publicly spin rejecting the proposal
Players become FA's at 28 or after 8 years of service
ELC's would be 4 yrs
Max contracts would be 5 years
Arbitration still in existence
c'mon lets do this !
yeah the 5 pm is a conference call with the reps for NHLPA
That it ain't no sin to be glad you're alive
ORGAN DONATION SAVES LIVES
http://www.UNOS.org
Donate Organs and Save a Life
Season will end later than the NBA Finals. Although it's almost to that point already. :roll:
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
throw in an amnesty clause a la the nba ...
Basically teams cannot send/hide players down in the minors without penalty.
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
this is to directly fuck my rangers :twisted:
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
lot of teams were doing that....defiantly hurts the big market clubs.
I like the rule, or any rule that hinders cap circumvention.
And the Sabres do the same thing. Kotalik and Morrisonn
i can see that being the case....every season flyers seem to play like 1 game a week for the first month. :fp:
The Oil might get a home opener if they started on Nov.2....but every year we have an extended road trip in November while the rodeo is in town (really)....so we'd have a big road trip to start the year :eh:
DarrenDreger: Interesting: top 10 $ earning teams will pay up to 50% of revenue sharing pie in NHL proposal.
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
Revenue sharing to be decided by a panel of NHL reps and NHLPA.
5 year contracts
Cant hide contracts in minors
2 year Entry level contracts
Can eat salary on trades
Salary cant move more than 5% off cap hit.
Teams can have their $70 million salary this year, but need to adjust down for next season (unsure how that is going to work with no roll-back).
Things I wonder about: Realignment, Olympics participation, NHLPA say in relocation issues (likely none), RFA rules.
so the top 33% contribute 50%.....why is that ridiculous?
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2012/10/nhl-releases-full-proposal-made-to-the-players.html
kevinbeetle: "Yes. When her career washes up and her and Gavin move to Galveston, you will meet her at Hot Topic shopping for a Japanese cheerleader outfit.
Next!"
It's not up to the big markets to keep certain franchises from folding because they cant pay the bills.
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
MCKENZIE: NHL PROPOSAL WASN'T MET WITH GREAT ENTHUSIASM
The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.
In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:
- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"
- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."
On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:
- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."
- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."
- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."
- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."
The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:
- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."
- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:
- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.
- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.
- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.
- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.
- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
yes it is.
The league as a whole needs the teams in struggling markets to survive. They took the expansion/relocation fees and didnt complain. It is terrible for the league that they have teams in danger of folding. As it is, they cant find owners who care to invest. The league becomes more attractive to prospective owners/businessmen when teams arent rotating bankrupcy
Also remember who is driving the negotiation: Ed Snider (Phi) and Jacobs (Bos). They know what they are doing and are willingly putting forth the revenue sharing. Phoenix boards up and Snider's networks lose market share, Jacobs' concessions Delaware North lose out, etc. I have also pointed out before, teams like Buffalo can and do sell out the entire season (at decently hiked ticket prices) and still lose millions.
As long as they are negotiating, period.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
true ...
I think a subtraction of at least 2 teams would be a plus. It would be a nightmare for the NHLPA as far as guys losing jobs, but the talent pool in the league would be stronger while getting rid of franchises that are bleeding money.
All that I once held as true
I stand alone without beliefs
The only truth I know is you.
He executes the wishes of the NHL member franchise owners. Those owners collected hundreds of Millions from the expansion/relocation fees.
This also created a meaningful footprint in the US which is integral for the maximum amount of television revenue.
Participation in hockey overall is up in the South and it is growing. We are seeing US born players from all over the United States as opposed to a few specific regions.
To me contraction isnt an option. The talent is not watered down at all. The sport is being played by way more kids than ever before, and also the inclusion of European players makes the overall talent level many times what it was when there were 21 teams. Contraction would make the NHL completely second-rate in the public's eye and it would also cut down on overall television revenue.
I do think that Phoenix may move if they cant iron that out. Columbus could be another dire situation unless they can start winning.
The NHL will likely try the Pacific Northwest and possibly Houston. Quebec City may eventually get a team and there are always rumblings of a team just North of Toronto.
But overall, I believe the NHL is best served being as socialized as possible. Keeping a cap in place and making most/all franchises profitable.
Without some form of revenue sharing, the league would have likely lost 3-4 Canadian teams in the mid-90's when dollar parity was an issue. Lots of storied franchises struggle while in rebuilding phases. Doesn't mean they should fold. It would hurt the entire league.
You can't look at the NHL as a collection of businesses...it is one business with separate branches. You pull your presence in any one market, and it tarnishes the image of the entire business and opens the door to competition (ie: WHA).
You're also spot on that it's vital to the growth of the sport to maintain a presence in non-hockey markets....even modest support means a lot of kids taking up the game.
And I agree that the talent pool is not watered down. That was a valid point right after expansion, but no longer...