Bettman must really want a lockout

Orca Pod said:
As I said, you are comparing your personal mortgage to a multi-layered corporation with many business aspects. They are apples and oranges.

The losses and tax writeoffs in venture A can be used to offset gains in Ventures B, C, and D, making things even better for the overall.

Like I said, I am not a tax expert by any means, but I do work with a couple on a daily basis. One of them actually worked for the Griffiths, and, for a time, Pattison (another very, very rich Vancouverite). A while back, he was mentioning about how complex their taxes were for the various companies and that it was quite rewarding to be able to transfer losses because it was better for the coprporation as a whole. I'll take his word for it over yours any day, even though I am not a tax expert.

Unless, of course, you can show me your credentials as a corporate tax expert, at which time I will give your 'common sense pal, common sense' appraoch some validity.
Click to expand...

You clearly missed the point. We will just leave it at that.
 
tiger tiger said:
I don't think the entry level minimum length will be accepted by the NHLPA.
Click to expand...

Heavily disagree. The current players would easily throw the rookies under the bus if it meant concessions in the percentage of the pie and free agency in their favor. Adding another 2 years to the current entry level contract guidelines creates more available $ to free agents.
 
An industry insider with knowledge of the players’ side of the CBA negotiation is predicting that there won't be a 2012-13 season.
The NHL initial proposal was reportedly leaked a couple days ago and it included demands like the players share of the revenues being reduced from 57% to 46%. "Last time around, the NHL made its salary cap proposal and barely moved off it," the source said, speaking under the condition of anonymity. "This is not an initial proposal. The league is shutting down and it’s ‘come back when you’re ready to accept.’ This is exactly what happened last time. You heard it here first, we will not play next year." Of course, it's still too early to panic. The economics of the NHL are different now than they were during the last lockout and the players remember what happened to them the last time they tried to hold out for an entire season. We might end up seeing a lot of these kinds of predictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes right down to it, that both sides will follow through on their threats instead of compromising.

Source: ProHockeyTalk
 
Kyle said:
Heavily disagree. The current players would easily throw the rookies under the bus if it meant concessions in the percentage of the pie and free agency in their favor. Adding another 2 years to the current entry level contract guidelines creates more available $ to free agents.
Click to expand...

The question is how does it match up with extending out the UFA requirements. If you 'just' add 2 years to entry level contracts, then yes, it may free up some money for free agents (guys who have 'paid their dues'). The issue the players will look at is that if you extend the ELC by 2 years and time to unrestricted free agency by 3 yrs (to 10 yrs of service) AND eliminate salary arbitration, not many guys will get to become unrestricted free agent to take advantage of that money. Only ~20% of players make it past playing 10 seasons (hard to believe, but found that data on another site). The union isn't really negotiating to protect 20%.

rhcardinals3 said:
An industry insider with knowledge of the players’ side of the CBA negotiation is predicting that there won't be a 2012-13 season.
The NHL initial proposal was reportedly leaked a couple days ago and it included demands like the players share of the revenues being reduced from 57% to 46%. "Last time around, the NHL made its salary cap proposal and barely moved off it," the source said, speaking under the condition of anonymity. "This is not an initial proposal. The league is shutting down and it’s ‘come back when you’re ready to accept.’ This is exactly what happened last time. You heard it here first, we will not play next year." Of course, it's still too early to panic. The economics of the NHL are different now than they were during the last lockout and the players remember what happened to them the last time they tried to hold out for an entire season. We might end up seeing a lot of these kinds of predictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes right down to it, that both sides will follow through on their threats instead of compromising.

Source: ProHockeyTalk
Click to expand...

I have to believe that both the NHL and NHLPA realize that a stoppage of play will result in hurting all the good that has happened since the last work stoppage which will hurt both sides. The initial proposal from the NHL severely restricts free agency and hinders owners from using loopholes to negate the parity of the salary cap (it also significantly drops the player's share of the revenue). I don't imagine the players are happy about the proposal, but I also don't think the owners are quite so delusional to think the players would sign a contract which restricts their earning potential and reduces their pool of money (lose-lose). In my opinion, the proposal looks more like a 'want list' than a list of demands. In the end, the owners just really want the revenue percentage closer to 50%. If I were to bet, I'd bet that nothing happens with ELCs or time to UFA status or even salary arbitration. The player's cut of revenue will end up somewhere between 51-54%. The rest of the 'negotiating' will be on details of salary cap and contract lengths... I sure wouldn't bet on a work stoppage.
 
Fred Bear said:
The question is how does it match up with extending out the UFA requirements. If you 'just' add 2 years to entry level contracts, then yes, it may free up some money for free agents (guys who have 'paid their dues'). The issue the players will look at is that if you extend the ELC by 2 years and time to unrestricted free agency by 3 yrs (to 10 yrs of service) AND eliminate salary arbitration, not many guys will get to become unrestricted free agent to take advantage of that money. Only ~20% of players make it past playing 10 seasons (hard to believe, but found that data on another site). The union isn't really negotiating to protect 20%.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. If the entry level deals are set at 5, then from there RFA status with a maximum 5 year contract at that point you'd have a guy locked up until he's 28 (assuming he signs at 18). It would still leave the UFA status open to the majority of guys still playing. 10 Years until free agency. I don't think that's such a bad thing. They'd be in the prime of their careers and theoretically be in a position to demand the most $ at that point. They could then get a 5 year FA deal wherever they want to go for Parise and Suter like $. If a team is willing to give a guy a 10+ year deal that keeps them with the team until their late 30's they'd certainly be willing to pay more for his prime years at a lesser term. Granted there'd be no more front loaded contracts I suppose but what's the difference. Pay me now or pay me later.

Under the old CBA Andrew Luck would sign a ridiculous contract similar (if not more) than the one Sam Bradford signed a few years ago. The NFLPA agreed to a rookie cap in exchange for free agency concessions among other things in the NFL. The NHLPA absolutely would chop the rookies to get what they wanted right now. More or less we'll sacrifice the young guys if it means we get early free agency. I'm guessing the entry levels move to 4 years with free agency at 27.

I suppose teams could get around that by wink wink agreeing to extend the contract another 5 years during the 4th season of the current deal but whatever.
 
If the NHL has another lockout. I will be finding a new league to watch and a new hobby to pursue. Please please please don't let greed shut the NHL down again.
 
Kyle said:
Heavily disagree. The current players would easily throw the rookies under the bus if it meant concessions in the percentage of the pie and free agency in their favor. Adding another 2 years to the current entry level contract guidelines creates more available $ to free agents.
Click to expand...

First, it would depend on where the cut-off is. Does it apply to Nugent Hopkins who is still in his entry level contract? What about Huberdeau? Or another 1st round pick from this year or last year's draft who hasn't signed an entry level contract? If you screw them, they eventually will screw you. So when the next CBA comes up, then concessions for 35+ year old players will be "thrown under the bus" for a few extra $. All that does is divide the NHLPA which I'm sure Fehr would not let happen.

A small percentage of players that have younger brothers, cousins, etc., would they throw them under the bus for a few extra bucks? I would think that blood would be a bit thicker. Hard to see PK Subban really wanting to screw over Malcolm.

Also, it would get extremely complicated if you mixed the percentage of revenue with entry level contracts. How much is 2 more years worth? 2? 3? 4% of revenue?

I think the entry level will be negotiated with the length of RFA status. If you extend the entry level to 5 years, and keep RFA at 7, then there's no middle contract at all, plus you risk losing the player in 2 years if you can't sign him long term. I.E. Jordan Staal. So the owners will prefer to have 10 years of RFA, but will give up the 5 year entry level to get it. Of course the owners would like both, but that isn't going to happen.

The players will prefer to keep the 7 year and have the 3 year entry with bonuses (rookie max is $3.775 mil. cap hit with bonuses). But the owners are trying to remove that too. Many of the young stars are getting UFA money in their 2nd contract after entry level. Kane, Toews, Doughty, Karlsson, Stamkos all made huge money after their entry level. I don't see them giving that up.

Plus top end Russians would bolt to the KHL, like Radulov, to make millions when they're 18-21 years old, instead of staying in the NHL for a measly $900k. Some teams like Edmonton (Yakupov), Montreal (Galcheynuk), Tampa (Vasilevsky, Namestnikov), St Louis (Tarasenko), Wash (Kuznetsov), Jets (Burmistrov) would probably not be in favour of it happening.

So you'll see star Russian players getting bypassed in the draft, so they won't even make the rookie max., like when there wasn't an agreement with the Russian Federation. Eventually it could spread to other European players, even NA players because there is such a great difference in money.

Imagine if Crosby was going to be stuck in a 5 year entry level contract for $900k and no bonuses. I'm sure there would be an offer from some KHL team for $100 mil for the next 10 years for him to go play there. An elite player could make $50+ million more during that time. I'm sure most of us would give the KHL a try for that kind of coin. The NHL is not going to risk losing young elite talent either for a few bucks because it would cost them more in the long run, and they know it.

I'm not sure when the KHL holds their entry draft, but they could just make it a week earlier than then NHL. They could draft players and offer them monster contracts before the NHL even has their draft. So imagine the next Yakupov, Nuge, Hall, Tavares, Stamkos, etc. playing in the KHL instead of the NHL.
 
Kyle said:
Look at it this way. If the entry level deals are set at 5, then from there RFA status with a maximum 5 year contract at that point you'd have a guy locked up until he's 28 (assuming he signs at 18). It would still leave the UFA status open to the majority of guys still playing. 10 Years until free agency. I don't think that's such a bad thing. They'd be in the prime of their careers and theoretically be in a position to demand the most $ at that point. They could then get a 5 year FA deal wherever they want to go for Parise and Suter like $. If a team is willing to give a guy a 10+ year deal that keeps them with the team until their late 30's they'd certainly be willing to pay more for his prime years at a lesser term. Granted there'd be no more front loaded contracts I suppose but what's the difference. Pay me now or pay me later.

Under the old CBA Andrew Luck would sign a ridiculous contract similar (if not more) than the one Sam Bradford signed a few years ago. The NFLPA agreed to a rookie cap in exchange for free agency concessions among other things in the NFL. The NHLPA absolutely would chop the rookies to get what they wanted right now. More or less we'll sacrifice the young guys if it means we get early free agency. I'm guessing the entry levels move to 4 years with free agency at 27.

I suppose teams could get around that by wink wink agreeing to extend the contract another 5 years during the 4th season of the current deal but whatever.
Click to expand...

The issue with your scenario is that the average career in the NHL is less than 6 seasons (quant hockey website). In fact, the median career is only 4 seasons spent in the NHL. If you extend an entry level contract from 3 to 5 years, most hockey players will only get an entry level deal. The union will fight to get the most hockey players the best shot at more money over their careers.

The same thing happens when you look at the time to UFA. Currently, at 7 seasons, ~70% of players won't reach UFA (there are other loopholes that allow more players into UFA than the 7 years of service requirements). When you shift that out to 10 seasons, the number of players who 'retire' before UFA goes up to 80% of the league. UFA becomes something only for the league's elite players and that goes against the NHLPA's mission.

If you extend out 'low value' contracts, the NHLPA is going to be less willing to give on their revenue % but he real key will be the fate of salary arbitration. The current proposal eliminates it and the NHLPA will never agree to 10 years of service without the possibility of arbitration. Look at Shea Weber's potential deal last year. I'm not saying the arbitrator was right giving him $7.5M, but just think of the benefit to Nashville if he'd have had to make a choice between $4.75M and not playing...
 
Bid really high or really low than you meet somewhere in the middle.


BYOB said:
If the NHL has another lockout. I will be finding a new league to watch and a new hobby to pursue. Please please please don't let greed shut the NHL down again.
Click to expand...

Good luck, basketball and football just had a league stoppage and baseball had one not too long ago. Prof sports is big business.
 
Last edited:
newfiecomicguy1 said:
Bid really high or really low than you meet somewhere in the middle.




Good luck, basketball and football just had a league stoppage and baseball had one not too long ago. Prof sports is big business.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the NHL just lost an entire season to get this salary cap, and now owners are crying thats nut enough?? After throwing $200 Million at 2 players, and owners are crying?? Thats the problem. the owners are the problem, they wanted cost certainty and they got it, but now thats not good enough to protect them from themselves.

Fold 4-6 teams, move a few others, and let the game go back to what it was.
 
It's all greed. The last CBA favoured the owners. There was an escrow, salary cap which was tied to revenue, gave small market teams a chance to compete, etc. People forget that the PLAYERS conceded and gave in to many of the owner's demands.

Fast forward to today, the cap is almost twice as much as it was and the floor minimum is more than what the cap maximum was. Because salary was tied to revenue, the owners would only pay players if they were making money. Now that the revenues have gone up, the owners want a bigger piece of the pie. Greedy. Just plain greedy.

What the owners/NHL didn't foresee was the economic downturn in the US. Fortunately the CAN$ pulled to be close to par which has driven revenue up.

Plus a lot of teams are heavily in debt. Some owners use the team as a tax break for other stuff, or are trying to build something more around a NHL team, like commercial property, a new central business district, etc. But that's not the players fault.

I have little sympathy for owners who over leverage themselves and then cry about how they aren't making any money and need more tax breaks.
 
newfiecomicguy1 said:
Bid really high or really low than you meet somewhere in the middle.




Good luck, basketball and football just had a league stoppage and baseball had one not too long ago. Prof sports is big business.
Click to expand...

Not talking other sports. Talking other leagues. Like WCHA,OHL or do I dare say the KHL.
 
The league got the players to crack last time so they will get what they want this time too. That's how CBA negotiating goes, once one side shows weakness it's only downhill from there with each new contract. The players would be lucky to keep what they have now or close to it, they will NEVER come out on top of a negotiation now that the owners have the momentum from the last lockout.
 
I am shocked that the owners and players are risking another lockout. I think this is just a stare down tactic....see who flinches first. The last lock out hurt the NHL but they were lucky and had a big rebound mainly due to the strong crop of young exciting stars coming in at the time (Sid, Ovy, Malkin, Phaneuf, Perry, Getzlaf etc). I am not so sure it would rebound the same this time. It would be stupid for the owners to risk that. It will be interesting to see, I will be shocked if the NHL season don't start on time.

The point is that the fans see how much money these players are making and at how expensive it is to buy tickets. Fans are not stupid they realize that the prices have skyrocketed mainly due to salary increases. I understand the players want more or at least what they already have but I don't think after the last lockout either will get much respect or support from the fans. I think these guys make way too much money but the owners opened that box and now its going to be hard to close it. Even after the last CBA and slary cap they all were trying to find ways around it. Both are greedy and are bleeding the fans.....without the fans and their money these people are beer leaguers just like the rest of us. The biggest problem is that fans like me will never stop watching the NHL. I love it and its a HUGE part of my life. The owners and players know that the hardcore fans will come back regardless. Sure we will be upset and rant and rage but the minute they return and drop the puck we will be there watching.
 
Last edited:
Orca Pod said:
Just saying...

Part of the article:

Donald Fehr, the NHLPA's executive director, had said repeatedly that they could agree to proceed with a new season even if a new agreement wasn't in place when the current one expires.

However, that's not something Bettman and the NHL's owners are interested in pursuing

:D
Click to expand...

Pure PR move..

Off course the players like the current system.... They know the next one will not nearly be as much to their liking...
 
CGS28 said:
Pure PR move..

Off course the players like the current system.... They know the next one will not nearly be as much to their liking...
Click to expand...

^^^ For sure, no doubt at all.

It's just one of my pet peeves when people confuse 'locked out' with 'strike.'
 
CGS28 said:
Pure PR move..

Off course the players like the current system.... They know the next one will not nearly be as much to their liking...
Click to expand...

Or they can continue playing and then strike at an opportune time such as right before the winter classic or playoffs. The owners ain't stupid enough to fall for that.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,549
Messages
2,233,533
Members
4,151
Latest member
barchamb13
Back
Top