2012 CBA/Lockout talk Part VIII..IT'S OVER!!!!!!

[bruinsfan1970]

Sure hope this is the last lockout Thread.
Part I http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1219919
Part II http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1266407
Part III http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1283219
Part IV http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1283219
Part V http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1299667
Part VI http://hfboards.mandatory.com/sh....php?t=1303913
Part VII http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1309379

Click to read more...

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

from other thread

This has been my number one gripe with the owners' position from the start. They give huge contracts with one side of their mouth, and complain about not being able to make money with the other side. I know it's way more complicated an issue than that, but that one thing has really been stuck in my craw against the owners' side since the start.

I think another related point you could rightfully wonder about is: Are the owners fighting for a $60M salary cap or a $44M cap floor? I wonder about that. It seems like they are more hellbent on bringing down the spending commitment by jacking down the floor. Even if the cap is $65M, no team is obligated to spend up to that limit, they are only obligated to spend to the floor ($49M in that case). They could - though many teams don't - self police how much they want to spend. Anywhere between $49-65M would fly. It is the floor that compels a certain level of spending and that is a clue as to what is really important to the owners.

But that all goes back to a fundamental problem with the league. We know there are plenty of teams that will spend up to near the cap ceiling. But is also plain to see that there are too many teams that don't want to or can't spend much and want a way to spend even less (lower floor). This is why the players tried to focus on, but quickly had to move off of, the revenue sharing stuff between teams. The gap between the haves and have nots is too pronounced - it's a real problem.

 

[smithformeragent]

I agree to a point but I see why they do it. Really they have to in order to stay competitive for UFA's and such. All it takes is one owner willing to pay the guy you want and it becomes a bidding way under the rules of the CBA. They want to put rules in place to stop that one owner from making eveyone one else have to make the big offers.

See though with a hard cap, I don't really buy this. Teams are going to be spending to the cap regardless, and it's really a question of how, not how much. You can choose to tie up your money with a couple of max contract guys, and sacrifice depth. Look at the Penguins. They had to make some really tough decisions this past off season because they have all of that money tied up in their top 2 centers. Then you have a team like Boston that chooses a more balanced approach, that still has tough decisions to make when it comes to a guy like Kessel. They play hard ball and deal him. That's their decision. Teams are rewarded through drafting and good decision making. Again, my real issue is with what the Red Wings were doing, and what Chia did with Savvy and front loaded the contract and inflated the length with make believe years at the end of the deal.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I agree to a point but I see why they do it. Really they have to in order to stay competitive for UFA's and such. All it takes is one owner willing to pay the guy you want and it becomes a bidding way under the rules of the CBA. They want to put rules in place to stop that one owner from making eveyone one else have to make the big offers.

I understand your point, Scott, but they have essentially held all the players and fans hostage to their refusal/inability to be rational with contracts. And instead of blaming the other GMs, who are giving out contracts, they shift the blame to the players. I certainly don't blame the players for accepting the silly contract, and I even understand why owners/GMs give them out. It's the giving it out, then using the lockout as a way of reining it in that chaps my ***.

Again, I know it's more than just that one issue, but that's one that really cheesed me.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

I think another related point you could rightfully wonder about is: Are the owners fighting for a $60M salary cap or a $44M cap floor? I wonder about that. It seems like they are more hellbent on bringing down the spending commitment by jacking down the floor. Even if the cap is $65M, no team is obligated to spend up to that limit, they are only obligated to spend to the floor ($49M in that case). They could - though many teams don't - self police how much they want to spend. Anywhere between $49-65M would fly. It is the floor that compels a certain level of spending and that is a clue as to what is really important to the owners.

But that all goes back to a fundamental problem with the league. We know there are plenty of teams that will spend up to near the cap ceiling. But is also plain to see that there are too many teams that don't want to or can't spend much and want a way to spend even less (lower floor). This is why the players tried to focus on, but quickly had to move off of, the revenue sharing stuff between teams. The gap between the haves and have nots is too pronounced - it's a real problem.

Very good point, but I don't really believe that it's one that's going to be solved with these CBA negotiations. They are trying, but really, they are trying to treat the symptom, and not the disease. The disease is that there are clubs that are in wrong location. They need to either move or be contracted. But we all know that contraction simply won't happen. And moving teams is a long process. But either one of those would be a better way to address the real issue you noted (bolded)

 

[DominicT]

What is an agent telling his clients and the NHLPA when he tweets something like this:

Scott Norton ‏@NortonSports
Think most people will be surprised to find out MANY @NHL teams doing better financially this year to date w/out a season! #MasterPlan

 

[bp13]

OK Dom I get it now. You're basically saying he'd be "voted out" because there are factions within the PA who don't endorse his stance at this point. In other words, he's more aligned with a certain faction of the PA than another. That makes sense.

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

Very good point, but I don't really believe that it's one that's going to be solved with these CBA negotiations. They are trying, but really, they are trying to treat the symptom, and not the disease. The disease is that there are clubs that are in wrong location. They need to either move or be contracted. But we all know that contraction simply won't happen. And moving teams is a long process. But either one of those would be a better way to address the real issue you noted (bolded)

You are right. The league has not shown any interest in addressing this and it usually leads to a debate about the NHL's plan of expanding in "non-traditional hockey markets," etc.

It's not even worth wasting a lot of ink on because the owners apparently think the growth model makes sense and they'll do whatever it is they're going to do, as far as expansion, team location, etc.

People will point to the ever increasing revenues as proof that all is well but there is certainly a school of thought out there that emphasizes bottom line results over making judgments based on top line revenue. (BTW that's why there is a lockout despite record revenues). The union may be glad to add teams and jobs but the individual health of any particular team and the salaries and contracts of individual players is a different matter. I don't personally feel that leveling the playing field via the CBA and a salary cap is the right long-term solution but Gary and Don don't call me to get my opinion about this stuff.

 

[JRull86]

Reading these threads infuriates me. Even though there's a lot of good info from some of our best posters.

I don't even know what to think or feel anymore more about this.

 

[goal1228]

I think another related point you could rightfully wonder about is: Are the owners fighting for a $60M salary cap or a $44M cap floor? I wonder about that. It seems like they are more hellbent on bringing down the spending commitment by jacking down the floor. Even if the cap is $65M, no team is obligated to spend up to that limit, they are only obligated to spend to the floor ($49M in that case). They could - though many teams don't - self police how much they want to spend. Anywhere between $49-65M would fly. It is the floor that compels a certain level of spending and that is a clue as to what is really important to the owners.

But that all goes back to a fundamental problem with the league. We know there are plenty of teams that will spend up to near the cap ceiling. But is also plain to see that there are too many teams that don't want to or can't spend much and want a way to spend even less (lower floor). This is why the players tried to focus on, but quickly had to move off of, the revenue sharing stuff between teams. The gap between the haves and have nots is too pronounced - it's a real problem.

Agree with this

 

[member 96824]

What is an agent telling his clients and the NHLPA when he tweets something like this:

Scott Norton ‏@NortonSports
Think most people will be surprised to find out MANY @NHL teams doing better financially this year to date w/out a season! #MasterPlan

He thinks hes making an argument for his clients...but he just made a great argument for the owners

 

[Kaoz*]

What is an agent telling his clients and the NHLPA when he tweets something like this:

Scott Norton ‏@NortonSports
Think most people will be surprised to find out MANY @NHL teams doing better financially this year to date w/out a season! #MasterPlan

The exact opposite of what he should be telling them.

The problem when introducing parity and fairness into the equation, is it's not realistic and who's back would it rest on anyway?

Up until now there has already been a potential $16M parity gap in place in terms of possible player payrolls between teams. Depending upon the relative capabilities of the GM's, that SHOULD make a huge difference each year.

If you wanted real parity, you'd say "the salary requirement is $50M a year (I just picked a number -- the point is everyone would spend equally) and you owners/gm's must spend to that amount".

Required salary: $50M
Teams as of now: 30
Salary due players; $1.5B
HRR required for 50/50 split: $3B

From there, the owners and players would split the monies above or below (escrow) that $3B figure.

That would make for so called "parity" -- however under that model teams like Toronto and NY would make an "unfair" killing financially.

So, if you wanted to make it "fair", then the Maple Leafs owners for example would then have to say something like "you know without a league we don't have a team, without a team we don't make money, without the Phoenix's we don't have a league -- so let's all share everything, it's only fair --- tv, tickets, merchandising, etc.,etc.,"

You could argue that that would be closer to fair and a system of parity than what's in place now. However, neither of those scenarios I describe will ever happen.

So given that, why should the players be forced to make things sort of fair, or close to parity? Neither is truly in place, nor ever going to be in place.

It needs to be shared equally by both players and owners. This is why as finances in the NHL change so to do the terms of the CBA. It's also why there is currently a lockout. No player loses money on the NHL and therefore neither should any owner. The NHL brings in more then enough revenue to ensure both sides remain healthy so why not make it so? That wasn't the case as many owners were taking a loss.

Now, of course the "complete" equality and "complete" parity as you describe it aren't at all realistic. Obviously not all teams will have the exact same payroll. That's mathematically impossible (or at least improbable) and an extreme example of what parity has come to mean to the sport. We don't define parity in the NHL as every team meeting one fixed salary figure. Instead, we discuss the allowable range of payroll (min cap hit to max). Decreasing the minimum hurts the leagues just as much as increasing the maximum. Sure a team like Phoenix could actually make money with a 20 million payroll but that helps no one other then the Phoenix owner. It's bad for the actual team, the fans, the other owners, the players, and most importantly the sport.

Yes, the difference between min and max is 16 million. I'd be more then happy if the NHL increased the cap floor to bring it closer to the cap ceiling, but in order to do that it has to be a viable number that most if not all teams can reach.

Also, in looking at your scenario, if owners ever did decide to equally split everything down the middle yes you have a fair system but you also have just created many rather massive issues. Not the least of which, the money making teams like NYR and Toronto now have no reason to jack up ticket prices to the extent they do. You just killed the NHL's revenue. No one wants that, or at the very least no one should. And teams like Toronto and NYR will always make a killing financially when compared to the rest. People need to accept that sooner rather then later, similar to how they accept guys like Sid Crosby making ridiculously more then a guy like Shawn Thornton. Owners pay a premium for those teams for a reason.

 

[DominicT]

He thinks hes making an argument for his clients...but he just made a great argument for the owners

The exact opposite of what he should be telling them.

Even more surprisingly, Norton is another of the agents along with Brisson rumored to take over negotiations in the event disclaimer is filed. (which I think happens)

 

[DominicT]

OK Dom I get it now. You're basically saying he'd be "voted out" because there are factions within the PA who don't endorse his stance at this point. In other words, he's more aligned with a certain faction of the PA than another. That makes sense.

Not voted out exactly, but there are players that would accept the NHL proposal.

But just like the owners there are players that take a hard stance. It goes both ways

 

[DOGSTARMAN]

Dom, others, gut check time: Do you expect a deal to get signed by January 11th?


I still say yes, but probably on the 11th, with more drama up until then, and it would surprise but not shock me if it all goes to hell and there is no deal. What Lou quoted was an eye opener for me. But I am expecting this abbreviated season is the bottom line for me.

 

[DominicT]

Dom, others, gut check time: Do you expect a deal to get signed by January 11th?

If I were to give a %age on a deal getting done? 99.9% that it will.

Never believed they would lose another season. And they won't

BTW won't get into the Brooks article other than to say he has been anti owner from the beginning. Have yet to see anyone else report that. I'm sure if a player told him that, that same player or another would have told someone else.

 

[thegodfather]

Dom, others, gut check time: Do you expect a deal to get signed by January 11th?


I still say yes, but probably on the 11th, with more drama up until then, and it would surprise but not shock me if it all goes to hell and there is no deal. What Lou quoted was an eye opener for me. But I am expecting this abbreviated season is the bottom line for me.

Personally I don't care if they get a deal done, they can all go rot in hell. The NHL and PA don't give two holy craps about the fans.

But I do believe a deal gets done because it was reported last week that the owners have basically told Bettman "cancelling the season is not an option".

 

[Spooner st]

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun
Both sides continue to meet separately with mediator. No plan yet to resume full group bargaining...

 

[Grzkid]

Dom, others, gut check time: Do you expect a deal to get signed by January 11th?


I still say yes, but probably on the 11th, with more drama up until then, and it would surprise but not shock me if it all goes to hell and there is no deal. What Lou quoted was an eye opener for me. But I am expecting this abbreviated season is the bottom line for me.

I think this seasons over. I have for awhile now and feel the same way thegodfather feels, both sides can get bent.

 

[Spooner st]

tsnotoole: And for the 111th straight day of the NHL lockout, 'doing something to make it up to the fans' is not a part of negotiations.

 

[Spooner st]

DarrenDreger: Mediator couldn't get 2 sides together to bargain yesterday and so far is failing today. Isn't that his job?

 

[Grzkid]

tsnotoole: And for the 111th straight day of the NHL lockout, 'doing something to make it up to the fans' is not a part of negotiations.

When they finally decide to start a season Gary and Donny will have given us NHL hockey back. What more do us greedy fans want?

 

[Spooner st]

When they finally decide to start a season Gary and Donny will have given us NHL hockey back. What more do us greedy fans want?

Can't wait to see the pub on tv from the NHL & player$ to say how much they mi$$ hockey,the fan$ and how much they care for the game, and tanking u$ for all our contribution$ because we are the one$ that matter the mo$t.

 

[Over the volcano]

DarrenDreger: Mediator couldn't get 2 sides together to bargain yesterday and so far is failing today. Isn't that his job?

Federal mediators cant get the Isralies and Palistinians together either. Maybe a deal isn't the goal right now for one/both sides.

 

[KnightofBoston]

Federal mediators cant get the Isralies and Palistinians together either. Maybe a deal isn't the goal right now for one/both sides.

please don't compare the two, thanks