Lockout

[tfrizz]

Four Recall Rule – Unlimited recalls after regular season (move in the owners' direction)

Ok, I see where they went with that. They don't eliminate the four recall rule after the trade deadline, just open it up in the playoffs.

Salary Arbitration – Elimination of walk-away from arbitrator's decision, but clubs can still "walk-away" by not qualifying a player

This makes sense. If you go to salary arbitration, you abide by the arbitrator's ruling.

[beLIEve]

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

The NHL will never let this fly. As always, the devil is in the details. Hard to call that a guaranteed 50/50.

[tfrizz]

o +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14

I like this. It'll relieve some pressure on struggling teams by allowing for a lower cap floor, even if it results in a wider range between floor and ceiling.

o The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).

I doubt the NHL agrees to this, though perhaps a lower number can be agreed upon.

[tfrizz]

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

The NHL will never let this fly. As always, the devil is in the details. Hard to call that a guaranteed 50/50.

Full excerpt:

Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

It's an almost-guaranteed 50/50. As long as the league continues to grow, or at least holds steady, then it would continue to be a 50/50 split. The only way that changes is if revenue begins to contract, which means that pressure is on the league/owners to ensure growth.

[tfrizz]

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
If my math is correct, and it may be suspect due to HRR projections and my own stupidity, amended player share (to include Make Whole) is:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
A shade over 55 per cent in Year 1, a shade under 54 per cent in Year 2, 52 per cent in Year 3, and 50. 3 per cent in Year 4.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Keep in mind, the Make Whole money is deferred by one year, but if you apply the $182M to Year 1, the $128M to Year 2, those are rough #s.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Those are also using the full 3.303B in HRR of last season, with 5 per cent growth starting in Year 2 of the deal.

[beLIEve]

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

The NHL will never let this fly. As always, the devil is in the details. Hard to call that a guaranteed 50/50.

Full excerpt:

Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

It's an almost-guaranteed 50/50. As long as the league continues to grow, or at least holds steady, then it would continue to be a 50/50 split. The only way that changes is if revenue begins to contract, which means that pressure is on the league/owners to ensure growth.

And that's the problem. Assumption of continued growth is what the NHL continues to reject in all of the NHLPA proposals. The NHL is of the belief that salaries need to be tied to revenues at all times, not just when the league is doing well.

[no name]

Elliotte Friedman ‏@FriedgeHNIC
To me, best omen is that NHL has yet to publicly respond and remained quiet.


Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
The NHLPA breakdown of the $393M it is seeking for Make Whole is as follows: Year 1: 182M, Year 2: 128M, Year 3: 72M, Year 4: 11M.

As positive as this sounds, it really is no different that the 50/50 split being gradually put in place. Constructive CBA wording. Not to be a negative nancy, but i won't be happy til the deal is signed.

Not quite. The Make Whole provision was something proposed by the NHL, who recently offered to fund it to the tune of $211M. The PA, in turn, has offered to agree to an immediate 50/50 split of HRR and asked that the NHL bump up Make Whole to $393M. The $182M difference amounts to $6.07M per team over the course of the 4 years, or $1.52M per year per team.

Thanks, that makes more sence now, and the NHL might agree to it. Seems reasonable from the players perpesctive.

[tfrizz]

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

The NHL will never let this fly. As always, the devil is in the details. Hard to call that a guaranteed 50/50.

Full excerpt:

Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

It's an almost-guaranteed 50/50. As long as the league continues to grow, or at least holds steady, then it would continue to be a 50/50 split. The only way that changes is if revenue begins to contract, which means that pressure is on the league/owners to ensure growth.

And that's the problem. Assumption of continued growth is what the NHL continues to reject in all of the NHLPA proposals. The NHL is of the belief that salaries need to be tied to revenues at all times, not just when the league is doing well.

Both sides assumed growth in their proposals. The NHL based their offers on 5% growth and the NHLPA used 7% growth.

[tfrizz]

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Again, no clue what's happening in room, but I suspect NHL will think decline too gradual and have system concerns.

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
But if we don't get a negotiation out of this, we never will. OK, I'm done now. Back to your regularly scheduled nonsense.



The latest tweet being key. If no negotiation comes from this offer, then all hope is lost.

[beLIEve]

There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

The NHL will never let this fly. As always, the devil is in the details. Hard to call that a guaranteed 50/50.

Full excerpt:

Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

It's an almost-guaranteed 50/50. As long as the league continues to grow, or at least holds steady, then it would continue to be a 50/50 split. The only way that changes is if revenue begins to contract, which means that pressure is on the league/owners to ensure growth.

And that's the problem. Assumption of continued growth is what the NHL continues to reject in all of the NHLPA proposals. The NHL is of the belief that salaries need to be tied to revenues at all times, not just when the league is doing well.

Both sides assumed growth in their proposals. The NHL based their offers on 5% growth and the NHLPA used 7% growth.

Assumed growth when doing comparisons of total dollars gained/lost compared to the current CBA, yes. The NHL has never included a clause in any of their proposals of guaranteeing a certain pool of money for the players (other than the fixed dollars they're willing to pay out in Make Whole provision). There rest is based on amount of HRR generated whether it goes up or down from the previous year.

[tfrizz]

And that's the problem. Assumption of continued growth is what the NHL continues to reject in all of the NHLPA proposals. The NHL is of the belief that salaries need to be tied to revenues at all times, not just when the league is doing well.

Both sides assumed growth in their proposals. The NHL based their offers on 5% growth and the NHLPA used 7% growth.

Assumed growth when doing comparisons of total dollars gained/lost compared to the current CBA, yes. The NHL has never included a clause in any of their proposals of guaranteeing a certain pool of money for the players (other than the fixed dollars they're willing to pay out in Make Whole provision). There rest is based on amount of HRR generated whether it goes up or down from the previous year.

Right. All I'm saying is that both sides have assumed growth in their proposals and if league revenue does continue to grow then there would never be an instance where "may not fall below its value for the prior season" comes into play.



Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Interesting element of union proposal: features guarantee that, starting in Year 2, share cannot be lowed than previous year. (cont'd)

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA (cont'd) That protects against both devaluation of CAD dollar and the potential decline in revenue and thereby shifts risk onto owners.

Katie Strang ‏@KatieStrangESPN
#CBA Not to say PA's proposal does not include ANY wiggle room, but there certainly is expectation NHL must work from this one to move fwd


It's a provision that could certainly lead to the NHLPA getting more than 50% of HRR, but there's no guarantee that it will or won't.

[tfrizz]

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle
With a $67-million cap in PA's system, floor would be closer to $45-million. Better gap there than current $16-million.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle
The players' share isn't going to shrink between Year 1 and Year 2 people. We're comparing a shortened season to a full one.

James Mirtle ‏@mirtle
It doesn't make any sense to say players are protecting themselves from lockout damage - wouldn't all damage come in Year 1 and 2?

[Hawkeynut]

My head hurts.

I can't wait for the NHL to flat out reject it to see the fall out. At this point I am about as cynical as they come.

[skullman80]

just cancel the season at this point...

@DarrenDreger: Players won't be happy with how the league is responding to proposal. No meaningful give-backs according to PA source."Disappointing day."

Michael Grange ‏@michaelgrange
Fehr -- on the $$ issue they said 'thanks but no thanks, we're not moving' #NHL #NHLPA

Aaron Ward ‏@aaronward_nhl
Source,major move by NHLPA not well received by NHL.Player conference call later this evening and likely not positive. #TSN

Jesse Spector ‏@jessespector
"Nothing on significant economic issues," Fehr says of NHL movement.

[skullman80]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Close on rev sharing, but no contract concessions and league remains firm on $211 mil Make Whole. Talks will continue, but may not meet Thur

David Pagnotta ‏@TheFourthPeriod
Not to be bearer of bad news, but told NHL isn't interested on budging on player contracting, among other items.

[Gaucho]

Well, f**k em all then.

[skullman80]

Both sides can go F themselves at this point.

[SolidSnake]

Both sides suck

[mikey287]

I'm sure the pro-union propagandists will make a big stink about the NHL's response (before fully hearing their position) but the owners have bent already...this is the first time the players have come to the table with anything remotely reasonable. I just got back from work, so I'm just now digesting some of this issue, but I see that a lot of the PA's proposals involve flat dollars...meaning that it is no longer linked to revenues...I don't understand how that can be accepted by the owners. We just lost an entire season over that issue, now we're gonna lose another one because the terrorist wants to undo it...? Come on...

I'll await the NHL's response...but the PA's offer, AIUI, seems to take its sweet time getting down to 50/50, the other sports leagues are there and have been there...not in 2017...

[Gaucho]

Darren Dreger ‏@DarrenDreger
Keep in mind, as significant as the PA's proposal was. No one expected NHL to accept. Emotion needs to settle and negotiations continue.

Great. See you in February maybe?

[Gaucho]

I'm sure the pro-union propagandists will make a big stink about the NHL's response (before fully hearing their position) but the owners have bent already...this is the first time the players have come to the table with anything remotely reasonable. I just got back from work, so I'm just now digesting some of this issue, but I see that a lot of the PA's proposals involve flat dollars...meaning that it is no longer linked to revenues...I don't understand how that can be accepted by the owners. We just lost an entire season over that issue, now we're gonna lose another one because the terrorist wants to undo it...? Come on...

I'll await the NHL's response...but the PA's offer, AIUI, seems to take its sweet time getting down to 50/50, the other sports leagues are there and have been there...not in 2017...

Isn't it a tad ridiculous to call Fehr a "terrorist"?

[MRandall25]

Wow. And some people called Fehr a terrorist...

[Gaucho]

I have no idea what the owners want at this point.

[Kovy27]

Busts out the bugle.

Plays taps.

Goodbye 2012-13 NHL Season.

**** both sides.

[the riddler]

Every proposal there is always some part of the deal that the side proposing puts in knowing the other side won't accept. The owners were never going to agree to the idea that the player's share can't be less than the year before. Even though it might not ever happen it's a gigantic risk.