Lockout

[joopen]

spiritfan.... (locked)OUT

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

These are just starting points. Take everything they asked for, cut the difference in half and that is where the NHL wants to be.
The league has been growing cash wise but still has too many teams struggling to make the cap floor, the new CBA has helped out a lot
but there is still some work to be done.

Even the Pens who are sold out are not exactly making a huge profit each year. Probably some merit to some tweaks.

[Noise]

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/13/report-owners-make-bold-first-cba-proposal/

1. Owners propose that players should reduce their share of the revenue from 57 percent to 46, an 11 percent decrease.

Thoughts: money is the king with these types of negotiations so expect the revenue split to be one of the biggest points of contention. Donald Fehr has expressed getting a bigger piece of the pie and considering the NHL’s tendency to boast about earnings, the NHLPA will have some serious leverage there.

2. Owners want players to go through 10 NHL seasons before they qualify for unrestricted free agency.

Thoughts: another … ambitious goal. It’s pretty tough to imagine this happening considering that limiting UFA status to 27 already hinders a player from signing many big deals.

3. Contract length limited to five years.

Thoughts: Maybe that exact length will change, but I’d guess this would be a less contentious point.

4. No more salary arbitration.

Thoughts: It’s tough to imagine this happening, although players might be willing to wait until an older age to have this option or some other similar compromise.

5. Owners want entry-level contracts to last five years instead of three.

Thoughts: Rookies are often the biggest losers in CBA talks for a simple reason: they aren’t there. That’s why rookie maximums are becoming more common in sports. It wouldn’t be surprising if active players relent on this one, at least if there’s a grandfather clause. Five years might be a bit much, too, though. In an odd way, this is one of the greediest demands from owners because a rookie maximum already provides outstanding savings.

1. Fat chance

2. Fat chance

3. Fat chance

4. Fat chance

5. Fat chance

[Letang Is The Truth]

I don't care about the players. I am just thinking on the owners side of rationalization.

Why not?

There are a lot of bubble/AHL players that barely make more than a well payed secretary, who sacrifice their body (and perhaps their brain) and have to find another way of life in their late 20s. Sometimes earlier.

[ffemtreed]

So much for minor tweaks to the CBA.

I don't see this ending before the start of the season.

[canaan]

i dont buy the poor ahl player whimsy. these guys are making 6 figures to play the game they want to play. for a lot of them, they have received college scholarships in the process. i see hard working guys in more dangerous situations making less than half of that in the construction biz.

[canaan]

i dont believe that there will be a huge issue in coming to an agreement on a new CBA. the only wild card, that was scary from point one, is Fehr.

[IanMoran]

Players need to concede a lot tbh. 57% is too much

Fehr won't concede $&@@

There will be a lockout IMO

[steelhammer]

Players should be getting more. Try running the league with a bunch of scabs and find out how much the players are REALLY worth. Owners could be replaced with any assortment of bloodsuckers and the league wouldn't miss a beat.

[pens_CT]

Players should be getting more. Try running the league with a bunch of scabs and find out how much the players are REALLY worth. Owners could be replaced with any assortment of bloodsuckers and the league wouldn't miss a beat.

So you are obviously for fewer teams in the NHL, or at least more franchise movement to Canada. Under the current system there are multiple teams running in the red, so by giving more to the players something drastic has to happen.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Players should be getting more. Try running the league with a bunch of scabs and find out how much the players are REALLY worth. Owners could be replaced with any assortment of bloodsuckers and the league wouldn't miss a beat.

The argument works both ways though. There may be more rich people to buy teams than there are players to play - but players couldnt run teams. Find me a player who has $200 million to buy a team, the resources and brains to try to run a $100 + million per year business because there is a fairly high chance of losing money and the connections/know how to get things done in settings like "city hall".

I mean fans are on here all the time talking about the Pens finances and contract risk taking ability simply because we have a filthy rich owner.

I could go on all day about this - but its like players nor fans realize that there is an entire business being run off the ice/field beyond the GM. There is a CFO, a CEO, a CMO, a COO, they have VP's who have middle management who have employees. They have a few hundred employees, marketers and sales and payroll tax and city taxes and budgets and expense reports. They hire and fire. They have other sides of the business like the pens do with development. Running an arena and so on.

The owners are just as important as the players. I highly doubt Malkin was in the room negotiating a very complex TV rights deal that the players get 57% of. I doubt Rick Nash, Matt Cooke and Alexander Semin were or even could refinance debt related a new arena being built, opening up ways for teams to spend money.

And (insert 1,000 more examples here)

[Malkin0017]

Spoiler:

[Ossa]

I got an idea. Let's get Romney and Bain Capital to cut their wages in half and outsource them. That will show them!

[davemess]

1. Owners propose that players should reduce their share of the revenue from 57 percent to 46, an 11 percent decrease.

- NHL's aim is probably to shave maybe 5% of that 57% number if at all possible, suspect it ends up more like 2 or 3%.

2. Owners want players to go through 10 NHL seasons before they qualify for unrestricted free agency.

- Suspect the owners dont really want this that badly, its just being put out there to stop the NHLPA from trying to get the current UFA point lowered any further. Would guess this stays as it is at present.

3. Contract length limited to five years.

- Five seems very ambitious for the League considering there isnt a limit already in place. If the League really wants 5 years its probably going to have to give into a lower UFA age, like right after Rookie contracts. Maybe the League can get a 10 year limit in place, with the idea of knocking it down to 8 a few years down the line.

4. No more salary arbitration.

- Very much tied into the UFA and Rookie contract length arguement. Not that many players go to arbitration these days because the market for players 2nd contracts has already been set so high. Again its something the PA might give up if they can get the UFA age lower or save a percentage point or two of overrall revenue.

5. Owners want entry-level contracts to last five years instead of three.

- Course they do, the Agents & PA (with the help of some GMs) have carefully eliminated the 2nd contract players used to get. Old 2nd contracts used to give the team the player for 2 or 3 years at 50-66% of their actual worth. At the moment players go right from their Rookie contracts onto 5 year deals on 90% of their worth that also take them to UFA age.

[Zach6668]

Players should be getting more. Try running the league with a bunch of scabs and find out how much the players are REALLY worth. Owners could be replaced with any assortment of bloodsuckers and the league wouldn't miss a beat.

So you are obviously for fewer teams in the NHL, or at least more franchise movement to Canada. Under the current system there are multiple teams running in the red, so by giving more to the players something drastic has to happen.

I'm curious to see an audited list of individual team earnings. If I had to guess, I'd say people tend to overestimate how many teams are losing money. I'm sure there are a couple, though.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Players should be getting more. Try running the league with a bunch of scabs and find out how much the players are REALLY worth. Owners could be replaced with any assortment of bloodsuckers and the league wouldn't miss a beat.[/quote
So you are obviously for fewer teams in the NHL, or at least more franchise movement to Canada. Under the current system there are multiple teams running in the red, so by giving more to the players something drastic has to happen.

I'm curious to see an audited list of individual team earnings. If I had to guess, I'd say people tend to overestimate how many teams are losing money. I'm sure there are a couple, though.

http://www.forbes.com/nhl-valuations/

This is a start while not 100% accurate I would guess. It seems to not take into account other business ventures. Remember the CBA only calls for related money not all money. But not all teams can say they have much of that either. Many teams share arenas or dont have sweetheart deals.

Although you cant really base the NHL and CBA off of Canadian teams either.

A fair point for the players is that even though teams dont make much money the value increases. The Penguins owners alone are in for about double their investment.

[Zach6668]

The thing with sports teams isn't really that they need to be profitable, per se, on an annual basis. The biggest thing for the owners is the valuation of the team, as in, what they can sell for. That's usually where the "profit" comes from.

The other thing, with a lot of these teams which ate listing as losing up to ten million, is that I believe most of them SHOULD probably be breaking even, of they werent just so woefully mismanage (Columbus, Florida, NY Islanders, etc.). The others just suffer from being in smaller markets.

[Zach6668]

Apparently I just skimmed your last paragraph and we made the same point. :)

[no name]

I don't mind the 10 years until free agency, but you can't let them go lower than 27. I would really like a cap relief peice for players drafted by one team to keep them with that team. I hate how easy it is for players to move around, rosters change so much year in year out. That is just my preference i know most pweople like how it is now.

I would love to know what the players demands were, the owners come out lookinng like bad guy letting everyoneknow thier demands first. As where the players right now look like victums as their bosses want everything.

[It'sagreatdayforhockey!]

I'm assuming the revenue share decrease has an impact on the salary cap/floor. Is it as simple as a direct relationship to that (i.e. an X% proposed reduction in cap/floor)?

[nastystang05]

Well, it's not always that simple. Depending on the plan they took...you got a kid that leaves home at 15, has to finish high school on the fly, doesn't go to college and pursues a professional hockey career only to fall short of big bucks or even pension...you kick around in Europe getting a little more than expenses (i.e. not enough to really save and make significant accumulation) and then you finally get spit out at 28...now what? That would be tough on anyone...

You go to trade school instead of normal high school to learn everything about cars, cars, cars...and when you get out of school, a new invention makes cars 100% obsolete...well...now what? Hyperbole, but the point remains...you just hope that these young players made the right choices and got good advice during their youth so that they can pursue a career in something else...

Well this is the wonderful thing about America you can grow up to do whatever you want. Its their choice. If they want to gamble their education away then that's on them. Its a calculated risk but not a forced option. One could argue that a 15 year old can't legally decide for themselves in that case it would be a parents poor decision to allow their child to put school on the back burner to play hockey. So I have no sympathy for those that didn't make it.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

Well, it's not always that simple. Depending on the plan they took...you got a kid that leaves home at 15, has to finish high school on the fly, doesn't go to college and pursues a professional hockey career only to fall short of big bucks or even pension...you kick around in Europe getting a little more than expenses (i.e. not enough to really save and make significant accumulation) and then you finally get spit out at 28...now what? That would be tough on anyone...

You go to trade school instead of normal high school to learn everything about cars, cars, cars...and when you get out of school, a new invention makes cars 100% obsolete...well...now what? Hyperbole, but the point remains...you just hope that these young players made the right choices and got good advice during their youth so that they can pursue a career in something else...

Well this is the wonderful thing about America you can grow up to do whatever you want. Its their choice. If they want to gamble their education away then that's on them. Its a calculated risk but not a forced option. One could argue that a 15 year old can't legally decide for themselves in that case it would be a parents poor decision to allow their child to put school on the back burner to play hockey. So I have no sympathy for those that didn't make it.

And lets not act like they dont get paid to play hockey even if they dont make the NHL as a career. I mean they do ok in the minors and can actually continue in other leagues and make a living. That point doesnt really mean much to me, I completely agree you.

[no name]

I'm assuming the revenue share decrease has an impact on the salary cap/floor. Is it as simple as a direct relationship to that (i.e. an X% proposed reduction in cap/floor)?

I think in the end the ceiling stays the same 70.2 the floor has to drop to around from 54 to around 45 for the smaller teams to really be able to survive. I also expect tighter contract restriction so the Kovalchuck deal can't be reproduced.

[BurghersAndDogsSports]

I'm assuming the revenue share decrease has an impact on the salary cap/floor. Is it as simple as a direct relationship to that (i.e. an X% proposed reduction in cap/floor)?

I think in the end the ceiling stays the same 70.2 the floor has to drop to around from 54 to around 45 for the smaller teams to really be able to survive. I also expect tighter contract restriction so the Kovalchuck deal can't be reproduced.

My concern with widening the gap is we could see an even further separation from the good and bad leading to an even more acceptance of the clutching. I don't want to drift too far back into that.

I definitely see restrictions on long term deals. Even with Sid, Parise, and Suter we are touching territory I don't like. They weren't too bad but wouldn't mind it adjusted a bit.

[Zach6668]

Well, the floor was instituted to make the gap between all of the teams as small as possible. Essentially, they wanted the smaller market teams to spend more, in order to be more competitive, while restricting the bigger market teams as well.

The problem with that, is that poorly managed small market teams will be losers no matter what they do (both financially and on the ice).

The thing about that, however, is even if you get a team, like say Nashville, that turns it around, is very well run, successful enough on the ice to start to build a fan base, you have to remember it's only been 7 years since the last lockout. Creating a fan base is a very long term thing, and even with the smashing success Nashville has had as a small market, they're still not necessarily assured of cultivating long term fans.

So, basically, what I'm saying, is that while lowering the floor looks good, it's really a short-term fix. It allows some of the weaker, more poorly managed smaller markets to show a profit, potentially, in the short run, but it would have much more devastating effects in the long run. We'd have the last 10 years of Florida's existence, perpetually. Weak teams, spending no money, and bringing in no fans.

Florida finally got to the playoffs last season, and now they'll start to draw more fans casually. If they have another strong season, maybe win a round, or win the division again, then you see that attendance and interest start to creep up a little more. It's a long, slow process in the non-traditional markets, especially those with a history of being awful.

The Panthers, for example, may lose money in the short-term, but all of it is going towards the long-term goal of developing a fan base.

So, yeah, widening the gap between the cap and the floor is a short term solution, and a poor one, at that, IMHO. You'll likely end up with more teams spending (relatively) no money, with no long term ability to attract a long term fan base.