Corn Flake
New member
bustaheims said:
So if my math is correct here... $393 mil / 5 years / 30 teams = a $2.62 mil per team premium each year for 5 years to pay for make whole.
Uh, sold?
2012 CBA Negotiations Thread
- Thread starter Kin
- Start date
- Status
So if my math is correct here... $393 mil / 5 years / 30 teams = a $2.62 mil per team premium each year for 5 years to pay for make whole.
Uh, sold?
bustaheims
Active member
TSNBobMcKenzie: Term may an issue. I'd be surprised if NHL enters into any agreement less than 6 years and 8-10 yr deal with "opt out" after 6 preferable.
bustaheims
Active member
Deebo said:
Yeah, I get that feeling as well. It doesn't really address the part of the problem the league wants addressed.
Kin
New member
Corn Flake
New member
Nik V. Debs said:
Interesting line:
"- In years two through five of this Agreement, the players' share in dollars may not be less than it was in the previous year. "
Sooo HRR is tied to a percentage but this clause effectively guarantees them a minimum amount. Hmmmm.
Corn Flake
New member
This letter the PA sent to Canadian Federal MP's ... if there was any point to that other than to antagonize, I don't know what it is. Talk about a random "hey let's do this for no reason other than to get attention" move.
Frank E
Active member
Corn Flake said:
Check out this part of the letter:
The players have proposed that their share of hockey-related revenue move towards the NHL's stated desire for a 50-50 split, with the only condition being that they honour contracts they have already signed. Honouring contracts signed between owners and players is a reasonable request.
No NHLPA, that's not the only condition.
Corn Flake
New member
Frank E said:
Yup. I will bet Gary loves this line from the memo:
"Now it is up to the owners to finally make a move towards the players. "
With lines like that, I can certainly see where all the talk that the owners despise Fehr is coming from.
Chev-boyar-sky
New member
Corn Flake said:Frank E said:
Yup. I will bet Gary loves this line from the memo:
"Now it is up to the owners to finally make a move towards the players. "
With lines like that, I can certainly see where all the talk that the owners despise Fehr is coming from.
Well the thing is that the line is true. The Owners haven't made one concession so far. They're getting their 50/50 split (or close enough), and they're getting a bunch of contractual issues sorted out that, again, are issues they're after. The players are moving towards the owners.
Outside of floating the "make whole" out of the owners share of HRR, there really isn't a single issue the owners have moved towards the players on.
bustaheims
Active member
Corn Flake said:
I imagine that's going to be a big sticking point for the league. The PA is still trying to put all the financial risk on the league's side instead being a true partner.
That, combined with this:
are going to be significant issues for the league.
There are some other things the league won't go for either. The PA calls for the team's option to walk away from arbitration decisions to be eliminated. That won't fly. Neither will some of the other tweaks they've proposed there, specifically not being able to buy out a player making less than $3M. The proposed way in which the PA tries to address back-diving contracts likely won't fly (it's not explained particularly well in the TSN article, so, I can't say for sure). The Make Whole structure that the PA proposes will definitely need some massaging.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
Chev-boyar-sky said:
Regardless of if it's true or not(and I agree with you)....It is an petty statement with no real need but to spew a little venom back at the other side.
The problem continues to be that there's two brickwalls trying to be bigger and tougher than the other one. Yes I realize that's how you negotiate, but the public BS has to stop as both sides are far too pigheaded to sweep a backhanded comment under the rug.
bustaheims
Active member
This part of the PA's proposal will definitely not fly. The league has been pretty clear about wanting to address this issue in a way that applies to existing contracts.
bustaheims
Active member
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
No real surprises there. What the PA proposed for contracts does not address NHL's concerns in any meaningful way. Make Whole could probably be negotiated if/when other issues (guaranteed minimum share, etc) are addressed.
No real surprises there. What the PA proposed for contracts does not address NHL's concerns in any meaningful way. Make Whole could probably be negotiated if/when other issues (guaranteed minimum share, etc) are addressed.
pnjunction
New member
bustaheims said:
My problem with the leagues insistence on this is that it means that contracts like Parise, Suter and Weber were essentially signed in bad faith.
Were the players naive, or trying to gain advantage of their own, when signing these? Probably, but that doesn't that the league isn't screwing them here.
bustaheims
Active member
pnjunction said:
Well, the league's position is that they violate the spirit of the cap and, in some cases, they may have been negotiated in bad faith on the part of the players - in that they have no intention of fulfilling the entirety of the contract.
- Status