Toggle sidebar

8/14 NHLPA proposal presented

Status
Not open for further replies.
LadyStanley

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
107,423
20,261
Sin City
dshoalts 11:32am via Twitter for BlackBerry® Don Fehr: we do believe proposal players made today can produce stable industry. Players indicated they take lower share revenue next 3 yrs.
Fehr: if revenue grows in next 3 yrs, reduced compensation could hit $455-million. Offer more revenue sharing - as much as $250-m next 3 yr
Players propose 3 year deal with option for fourth. Fehr said will take owners "some time to understand."
Fehr says be wrong to interpret there no hard salary cap in proposal. Said will still be a hard cap.
Fehr said players willing to reduce share of income because some franchises in trouble.
Players propose there be no changes to player contracts under existing rules.
Fehr flanked by most of 23 players who attended meeting. Crosby, Ovechkin, Stamkos front and centre. All look solemn.
Fehr won't predict how owners react to their reaction. "I'm out of prediction business."
Fehr says talks somewhere between frank and cordial. Frank is lawyer-speak for hostile.
Fehr said offer was after 3 yrs of working under their proposal an option to revert to current CBA in 4th year.
Click to read more...
 
Hank Chinaski

Hank Chinaski

Registered User
May 29, 2007
20,819
3,059
Northern MB
Article on TSN:

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=403068

The NHL Players' Association and executive director Donald Fehr made their first proposal to the National Hockey League on Tuesday, with Fehr saying he believed it should, "lead to a new CBA" and "produce a stable industry."

While Fehr did not get into specific line-by-line details of the proposal, he did indicate that the players were willing to take reduced hockey-related revenue for the next three seasons and that it did not suggest the elimination of the league's hard cap.
Click to expand...
 
tbcwpg

tbcwpg

Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
16,381
19,475
Melrose Munch said:
Fehr dissapoints me. He accepts the cap, how soft is this guy.
Click to expand...

I don't think the cap would be something the owners would be willing to budge on. Some may, but not enough to get a majority on board. Fehr probably realises that and included it in the proposal, for PR more than anything. The players look more willing to bend than the owners here.
 

WantonAbandon

Registered User
Oct 16, 2011
5,462
0
Melrose Munch said:
Fehr dissapoints me. He accepts the cap, how soft is this guy.
Click to expand...

He isn't soft, He is realistic. No point in fighting a losing battle. Its also good he acknowledged that players are in fact willing to take a pay cut due to franchises being in trouble. Hopefully the babling nonsense on twitter can cease and the two sides can get down to business.
 

Buttonwood

$$$
Mar 31, 2005
1,697
18
East Coast
Good on Fehr.

Eyeballing this it looking like the players suggested ~52.5% share. Assuming growth and an average on $3500M in revenues over the next 3 years, a 4.5% cut works out to around $155M per year, or about $455 over all 3 years.

Short deal though. Pro: Can reassess franchise health and revenue sharing sooner. Con: Have to good through this again quicker.
 
Marc the Habs Fan

Marc the Habs Fan

Moderator
Nov 30, 2002
98,614
10,723
Longueuil
I have to say I am impressed by the early reports on the proposal.

Props to the players for not going into total unrealistic mode like the owners did with their first proposal.
 
MasterDecoy

MasterDecoy

Who took my beer?
May 4, 2010
18,355
3,818
Beijing
Melrose Munch said:
Fehr dissapoints me. He accepts the cap, how soft is this guy.
Click to expand...

[mod] im pretty sure i read somewhere that the players liked the cap, not sure where though. to me that seems like the likeliest reason why; that he does what the players ultimately want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TrillMike

TrillMike

Registered User
Feb 21, 2012
6,311
515
Dallas, TX
Buttonwood said:
Good on Fehr.

Eyeballing this it looking like the players suggested ~52.5% share. Assuming growth and an average on $3500M in revenues over the next 3 years, a 4.5% cut works out to around $155M per year, or about $455 over all 3 years.

Short deal though. Pro: Can reassess franchise health and revenue sharing sooner. Con: Have to good through this again quicker.
Click to expand...

The 3 year deal scares me. I don't like having to speculate whether they'll miss another season again in 2015.
 
tbcwpg

tbcwpg

Moderator
Jan 25, 2011
16,381
19,475
Trillmike said:
The 3 year deal scares me. I don't like having to speculate whether they'll miss another season again in 2015.
Click to expand...

From what it looks like, the deal would be for more than 3 years, but there is a 3 year clause in it to either continue with the new CBA or revert to the old one, based on revenue growth.
 
Hire Sather

Hire Sather

He Is Our Star
Oct 4, 2002
31,842
5,601
Connecticut
Jeff Marek ‏@JeffMarek

Think TOR, PHI, MTL, NYR, BOS etc have an appetite to pay out a quarter of a billion dollars in rev share money annually?
 

Buttonwood

$$$
Mar 31, 2005
1,697
18
East Coast
tbcwpg said:
From what it looks like, the deal would be for more than 3 years, but there is a 3 year clause in it to either continue with the new CBA or revert to the old one, based on revenue growth.
Click to expand...

You might be right, if the players have the option. I'm sure they would love to revert back to this deal. Owners would not take the option, essentially making this a 3 year deal.
 

mackaveli

Registered User
Jun 12, 2005
409
0
Vancouver, BC
Trillmike said:
The 3 year deal scares me. I don't like having to speculate whether they'll miss another season again in 2015.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the three year deal as long as both parties can negotiate on time and adjust the CBA depending on the state of the economy / game. If the CBA is working after three years then make minor tweaks etc., and if it doesn't work as intended then adjust and make major changes.

But having a 5+ CBA deal then can lead to bigger problems not getting fixed until the last moment. The shorter the CBA perhaps would cause both parties to be more urgent and more realistic on what is good for the game.

Also, I don't think the CBA needs to be drastically changed if both parties agree to cut % of players revenue and increase sharing of revenue between teams I think that is the main talking point of the CBA this time around.

If the players proposal is to cut the players revenue to 52% and the Owners want players to get what 43%. It seems that hopefully at the end of the day it will be 50/50 pretty much.

It's early but I think that both parties can work with this. I know the owners want to change the contract status and I think that is something that both parties can eventually agree on what it should be as long as the revenue sharing and players revenue gets dealt with first the other things can be ironed out later.
 
TrillMike

TrillMike

Registered User
Feb 21, 2012
6,311
515
Dallas, TX
tbcwpg said:
From what it looks like, the deal would be for more than 3 years, but there is a 3 year clause in it to either continue with the new CBA or revert to the old one, based on revenue growth.
Click to expand...

I missed that part. But, if they went back to the current CBA in 3-4 years don't we have the same mess that we have today?
 

Dado

Guest
I can't make heads or tails of the "proposal".

What exactly did they offer? It sounds like a small reduction in "percentage" (with no details on how the base number is calculated) plus big increase in revenue sharing, but it's really not clear to me. Hard cap does not (necessarily) mean no luxury tax, either - is that part of the package?
 
Hollywood Burrows

Hollywood Burrows

Registered User
Jan 23, 2009
5,553
2,831
EAST VANCOUVER
Buttonwood said:
Was it annually or over 3 years? I cn't undrstnd dam twtr spk. #NHL
Click to expand...

Don't count on Jeff Marek to nail the details, he strikes me as semi-literate at best.

Consider me encouraged to see at least one side behaving like grownups and making a serious proposal. Hopefully more details will emerge today.
 
TrillMike

TrillMike

Registered User
Feb 21, 2012
6,311
515
Dallas, TX
Dado said:
I can't make heads or tails of the "proposal".

What exactly did they offer? It sounds like a small reduction in "percentage" (with no details on how the base number is calculated) plus big increase in revenue sharing, but it's really not clear to me. Hard cap does not (necessarily) mean no luxury tax, either - is that part of the package?
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. I know information is still coming out, but is this generally good news?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom