NHL CBA Talk

shabbs wrote:I predict the following will be the pillars when all is said and done:

--- 50/50 split of revenue
--- no change in FA eligibility
--- 7-10 year contract limit
--- no change in signing bonuses
--- entry level deals to be 4 years
--- elimination of the cap floor, or a serious lowering of it

Book it.

That actually looks pretty good for both sides. I'd like to see them structure the cap increases differently too. The cap rises too quickly.

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:You are forgetting contract structure. There was talk about making the salary and the cap hit the same -- i.e. you are paid the same in each year of a multi-year deal. Signing bonuses would have to stay, of course.

Yeah, I don't see that happening.

Stupid thing is, the GMs/owners already have control over this. They can unilaterally control the length and structure of the contracts, although is they *ask* about it and the players turn it down, then if they actually *do it* they would be accused of collusion.

So things like this they really need to just not talk about.

I wouldn't be opposed to longer ELC's and a lower or no floor. If a team doesn't want to spend, they shouldn't have to. It creates more problems than it does benefits.

Riprock wrote:I wouldn't be opposed to longer ELC's and a lower or no floor. If a team doesn't want to spend, they shouldn't have to. It creates more problems than it does benefits.

The only benefit I could think of from spending is having star players. Nobody wants that, do they?

Except if you don't have a player that is widely regarded as being worth $7M (as in, all 30 teams would agree that X is worth $&M/yr). Because with a floor, a team is forced to spend and they have to do that one ear or another, so a $4M player becomes a $7M player, which then makes an actual universal $7M player a $9M player.

Riprock wrote:Except if you don't have a player that is widely regarded as being worth $7M (as in, all 30 teams would agree that X is worth $&M/yr). Because with a floor, a team is forced to spend and they have to do that one ear or another, so a $4M player becomes a $7M player, which then makes an actual universal $7M player a $9M player.

So what? That's another reason it's stupid to be a floor team. If you don't want to spend you have no business in pro sports.

So, the NHL has tabled the rest of their proposal...

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=401430

Now we wait for the NHLPA counter proposal. Once we see that, we'll get an idea of how far apart the two sides are.

shabbs wrote:
Now we wait for the NHLPA counter proposal. Once we see that, we'll get an idea of how far apart the two sides are.

Watch the NHLPA propose something like:

1) Eliminate ELC contracts
2) Minimum 5 year contracts, no maximum
3) Increase player's share of HRR to 70/30
4) Mandatory signing bonuses
5) 1 year of NHL service to UFA status down from 7



Seriously I can't see them being close at all, NHL proposal was all take.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

Amnesia021 wrote:so we're what, +/- 1.481 million under the floor currently (obv. if the floor stands where it is)?

Yeah, but we have to wait to see if it stays the same, or goes down under the new CBA. We're good I think.

I was thinking about this today and I think if the player's 'take' in the current CBA is at 57% of total revenue (thus making the salary cap/floor at 70.2/54.2) and they negotiate that number in the new CBA down to around 46% (making a lower cap/floor) I believe the current contracts will be reduced/rollback by the same amount (roughly 20%) meaning we'd still be under the floor.

By how much? Must be only a few hundred thousand. Thank could mean a high priced rookie gets a job over someone like Boroweicki for example.

Sorry, I moved this over to the CBA thread to keep it closer to the topic. You can move back if you want...

I think it would be just around a million. But i'm no math genius, so take it with a lump of salt.

wprager wrote:I can't see them asking for a rollback again. Where did you hear that? They'll have to be more flexible with the cap, though, both on the floor and ceiling. Union is calling for more/better revenue sharing but perhaps a luxury tax is more in order.

Moved this one as well

I don't know how they could lower the cap or the revenue split without rolling back salaries. I've been reading where the NHLPA's analysts are looking at the leagues proposal as a nearly 14% rollback of the cap. The current Cap is based on 57% of hockey related revenue (HHR) and the NHL's proposal drops it down to 43% HHR.

Conservatively (and if my math is right), that would drop the Cap all the way to 52.9 Million. That would put roughly 21 teams over a million dollars over the Cap. Even if they end up in the middle at 50% HHR it would still put the Cap to around 61.5 and leave around 10 teams over the Cap.

I just can't see them cutting the cap without rolling back the salaries by the same percentage. If not, then they'd have to turn the Cap into a soft cap with a luxury tax. If they go that route though, then lockout, here we come.

I would not want to see a luxury tax. That will benefit the big-market rich teams and they get all the star players as they can then spend stupid.

The league would again be the haves and have-nots like just before the last CBA where we lost a full season on hockey.. which would have been for nothing at all.

A luxury tax is a bad idea for about 80% of the teams in the NHL.. it benefits the few & the rich.

sandysensfan wrote:
A luxury tax is a bad idea for about 80% of the teams in the NHL.. it benefits the few & the rich.

Well the idea is that the luxury tax money would go to the poor teams.

But it'd be bad for the sport, we'd have the top 5 teams coming into the post-season with $100M+ payrolls and pretty much the rest of the league would just be a farm team to these as they'd poach the best players with they hit UFA/RFA status with contract offers and offer sheets that smaller teams could never match.

A 22% roll back in salaries. Bettman must think he has the players by the short and curlies to ask for another roll back of that magnitude.

I think it's a matter of we locked you out before, you caved, so we're doing it again.

Nasty and I don't think it works this time personally.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:
Nasty and I don't think it works this time personally.

What leverage do the players have ? Are they all going to play in the KHL ?

The fact that the NHL is much more popular and that revenues grew such that the cap went from 39M to close to 70 tells me that the NHL has a lot to lose by locking the players out this time.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:The fact that the NHL is much more popular and that revenues grew such that the cap went from 39M to close to 70 tells me that the NHL has a lot to lose by locking the players out this time.

That was true during the last lockout as well and Bettman had no problems losing a season to get what he wanted.

NHL revenues grew but only the big market teams saw any of that money. I imagine most owners are more than OK to lose part or all of the season as they'd be losing money anyway.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:A 22% roll back in salaries. Bettman must think he has the players by the short and curlies to ask for another roll back of that magnitude.

I think it's a matter of we locked you out before, you caved, so we're doing it again.

Nasty and I don't think it works this time personally.

Remember this little exchange?

Neo - You won't let it happen, you can't. You need human beings to survive.

The Architect - There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept.

The owners can survive a lockout. Very likely the vast majority of players cannot. Most people are not mature enough to think about retirement until they are at an age where, in the NHL, you are pretty much on your last contract.

Owners are also greedy and even with the roll back, should the players eventually cave, the owners will see a major loss in revenues and loss of momentum. It's also terrible for the league to have lock-outs in two consecutive contracts especially for the 4th (arguably lower) major league sport. This will also be the third work stoppage since Bettman took over should it come to that.