Sarcastic wrote:Anyone knows how much they're paying Malkin in Russia?
The KHL put a rule in that locked out NHLers can't be paid more than 65% of their NHL salary, so Malkin is making no more than $5.85-million.
Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Sarcastic wrote:Anyone knows how much they're paying Malkin in Russia?
MRandall25 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:Anyone knows how much they're paying Malkin in Russia?
Nowhere close to how much he'd make if he signed there as a free agent.
no name wrote:MRandall25 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:Anyone knows how much they're paying Malkin in Russia?
Nowhere close to how much he'd make if he signed there as a free agent.
The KHL agreed to pay up to 65% of what they were making on their NHL contracts. I
opie22002 wrote:"My message to owners and to players is, 'You guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you,"' Obama said. "And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets."
champeen wrote:opie22002 wrote:"My message to owners and to players is, 'You guys make a lot of money and you make a lot of money on the backs of fans, so do right by your fans. You can figure out how to spread out a bunch of revenue that you're bringing in, but do right by the people who support you,"' Obama said. "And I shouldn't have to be involved in a dispute between really wealthy players and even wealthier owners. They should be able to settle this themselves. And remember who it is that's putting all that money in their pockets."
please tell me this is a real quote, because it's awesome.
opie22002 wrote:Yeah it's real.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lock ... ate_dec13/
Sarcastic wrote:I'd be OK with 6 years. Length isn't imporant to me, personally, but for whatever reason the league wants 5 years and I can't believe that this stalemate could be about a single year there. Seems silly on both sides, doesn't it? I would think it has more to do with the 5% - 25%.
Sarcastic wrote:But under no circumstance should the NHL agree to longer term and a higher % or the players get it all and we're back to teams cheating.
Sarcastic wrote:opie22002 wrote:Yeah it's real.
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl-lock ... ate_dec13/
"The NHL wants to limit personal player contracts to five years, seven for a club to re-sign its own player and has elevated the issue to the highest level of importance. The union countered with an offer of an eight-year maximum length with the variable in salary being no greater than a 25 per cent difference between the highest-paid year of the deal and the lowest."
8 years and 25% means cap circumvention as it had been in these last several years. The players are more interested in getting paid than improving the game. I'm done with them. It will be hard rooting for any once hockey comes back. And I hope the league gives not an inch more. Time to squash them.
Seriously. There are a few of you here rooting for the players. That means you guys want cap circumvention to continue, yes?
MRandall25 wrote:It's not a matter of variance; I don't expect the owners to want the 25%, unless the 25% language actually means you subtract 25% from the highest value and that's the lowest you can go (which is how I originally interpreted it, incorrectly if I may add).
It's the contract year limits. You can still have 8 year contracts without circumvention. Find the middle ground (which IMO should be 6 year max for FA, 8 for returners. Gives the players longevity with a team, but doesn't handcuff the owners (basically adds 1 more year to the proposed)). The % variance is really meaningless unless you're talking straight year-by-year salary numbers.
Tico Rick wrote:Why would a player want that? If he sucks after 5 years he knows he'll get cut. If he overachieves, he'll still be stuck with the same team and contract. That's a lose-lose situation from a player's perspective.