Allowed it? You realize that with the last CBA it was reduced significantly from pre-salary cap levels, right? The last CBA didn't "(frank)" themself, it was a trend in the right direction, just not far enough.
- prock

You do realize that the players share went up during the CBA? Why would the NHL offer such a thing if they weren't prepared to pay it?

so were making the giant leap and assumption the league who franchises all the NHL teams won't implement the aspects of the CBA into their own ...call it... league rules or (franchise rules)? They would just stand there and let it all fall apart? They might not be able to control absolutely everything but you really think they would just stand by and let this doom and gloom situation happen?

- akermack

As much as your duh emoticons make a convincing argument, I'm afraid you've missed the point of decertification.

If the union decertifies, the league can't implement aspects of the CBA and call it league or franchise rules. Anything that inhibits player salaries or movement would be deemed illegal under anti-trust laws.

You do realize that the players share went up during the CBA? Why would the NHL offer such a thing if they weren't prepared to pay it?
- Lahey

Of course it did? Did you think the PA would accept an agreement that wouldn't allow salaries to increase?

Why would they offer that? First, because it was a massive improvement over what was happening. And second, under the economic conditions at the time, it appeared to an agreement that could work reasonably well (which it has). The economic environment in North America has changed, which has made it more difficult for some of the weaker American teams. Third, after a year and a half of negotiating, they likely thought that was the best they were going to get, for that round, and could probably get a little further next time around.

Do you think, if they thought they could have gotten 50% last time out, they would have just said "nah, screw it, givem the extra 7%, we don't really need it."?

At some point, either side has to start thinking about whether they're losing more by sitting out, rather than taking the best deal they can at the time. It's exactly what's happening now.

A few people here might benefit from Yost's most recent blog:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...l-Blazed-By-NBA/134/47628

Of course it did? Did you think the PA would accept an agreement that wouldn't allow salaries to increase?

Why would they offer that? First, because it was a massive improvement over what was happening. And second, under the economic conditions at the time, it appeared to an agreement that could work reasonably well (which it has). The economic environment in North America has changed, which has made it more difficult for some of the weaker American teams. Third, after a year and a half of negotiating, they likely thought that was the best they were going to get, for that round, and could probably get a little further next time around.

Do you think, if they thought they could have gotten 50% last time out, they would have just said "nah, screw it, givem the extra 7%, we don't really need it."?

At some point, either side has to start thinking about whether they're losing more by sitting out, rather than taking the best deal they can at the time. It's exactly what's happening now.
- prock

Ugh the % went up too, not just the total dollars.

A few people here might benefit from Yost's most recent blog:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...l-Blazed-By-NBA/134/47628
- dawgzhouse

The guy cheers for the Bills and no one holds a gun to his head.

I just don't know if I could read his stuff.

Ugh the % went up too, not just the total dollars.
- Lahey

What % went up? The % of salaries to total revenue?

Umm, no it didn't.

What % went up? The % of salaries to total revenue?

Umm, no it didn't.
- prock

Yes it did, but you know all so I'll take your word over page 193 of the CBA.

Yes it did, but you know all so I'll take your word over page 193 of the CBA.
- Lahey

I assume you're likely referring to a portion of actual salaries vs cap hit, due to some of the front loaded contracts. That's the only thing I can think of that may cause that to happen.

If that's the case, I imagine that a) that would be pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, b) whether it increased by a couple of percent due to loopholes in the CBA or not, it's still some 20% lower than it was pre-CBA, and c) I believe that's supposed to flatten itself out from escrow payments anyway (but I could be wrong on that).

Anyway, quote your source.

Nuclear holocaust?
That's a little over the top... It's a lockout with a union about to decertify, nothing more...

I assume you're likely referring to a portion of actual salaries vs cap hit, due to some of the front loaded contracts. That's the only thing I can think of that may cause that to happen.

If that's the case, I imagine that a) that would be pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, b) whether it increased by a couple of percent due to loopholes in the CBA or not, it's still some 20% lower than it was pre-CBA, and c) I believe that's supposed to flatten itself out from escrow payments anyway (but I could be wrong on that).

Anyway, quote your source.
- prock

No. If Revenues were a certain amount the % was 55-56%, if it was over that mark it was 56-57% My bad 05-06 was 54%.

And I quoted my source, page 193 of the CBA.

Let them decertify, let them do whatever they want. The complete implosion of this league is what is needed.

No matter what the league STILL has control when the dust settles, and even more so, they will have carte blanche of resetting EVERYTHING.

New league sets out new maximum NON GUARANTEED contracts. All first line players are paid the EXACT same with a max salary of $4 million a season. All Second line players are paid the same with a maximum $3 million a season. All third liners are paid the same with a maximum $2 million a season. All 4th liners are paid a maximum $1 million. If players fluctuate between lines throughout the season, their salary is prorated for that. What a novel idea that you actually have to work to a certain level dependant on what your output is.

All teams the players were initially signed to will have first crack at signing those players back. If the players bite of their noses to spite their face and say no, then its open to the other teams in the league.

And most importantly, ALL tickets prices are reduced so the FANS (yes the ones who let you make your money) can actually afford to go to a game.

Any players that don't like any of this, have fun over in the KHL, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out. Good riddance.

There is so much the NEW NHL could repair that the old players will be wishing they had signed the deal that was offered to them back when it was 43% HRR.

I am so sick of all of this. I actually am BEGGING for this decertification to happen.

Actually, if the owners could decide amongst themselves that only 1 year contracts were allowed, everything would work out fine. The flood of free agents every off season would keep prices down and players would get paid for what they did last year.

Actually, if the owners could decide amongst themselves that only 1 year contracts were allowed, everything would work out fine. The flood of free agents every off season would keep prices down and players would get paid for what they did last year.
- allycat

Players would sue for colusion.

No. If Revenues were a certain amount the % was 55-56%, if it was over that mark it was 56-57% My bad 05-06 was 54%.

And I quoted my source, page 193 of the CBA.
- Lahey

And if you are counting 3% of the 2.7bil(number in which 57% takes effect) is 81mil.

That's why I said "if," Dwight. Couldn't it be a rule for joining the league, or something? Fehr's predecessor, Marvin Miller, was afraid that baseball would go to 1 year contracts after Finley suggested it, and was relieved when the owners didn't consider it. Anything that scared Marvin Miller is worth trying!

That's why I said "if," Dwight. Couldn't it be a rule for joining the league, or something? Fehr's predecessor, Marvin Miller, was afraid that baseball would go to 1 year contracts after Finley suggested it, and was relieved when the owners didn't consider it. Anything that scared Marvin Miller is worth trying!
- allycat

Would have to be in the CBA. Does either side even want that.

How do you market your superstar if you are an owner and as a player you want to move 15 times in your career?

If the union decertifys, would it not open the door for replacement players ?

No. If Revenues were a certain amount the % was 55-56%, if it was over that mark it was 56-57% My bad 05-06 was 54%.

And I quoted my source, page 193 of the CBA.
- Lahey

Great, so just about everything I said holds true. Thanks.

The PA will never deceritfy, even if they bluff, which is all it would be, it's a calculated bluff that they hope the NHL would bite on and if they don't, all we'll end up with is a longer lock out.

Some players in the wake of a decertificaton would definitely benefit in the long run, but the majority will not, those players will lose because this would be the best opportunity for teams to monumentally lower salaries(espcecially the over paid ones) to better suit the teams consistantly in the red and the league in general.

It could happen yes, but the biggest reason it won't is because the majority of players would lose even more than they would with ANY new CBA not withstanding things like guaranteed contracts, benefits, retirement etc...etc...

Let me dig up my Pronger Jersey......
- Lahey

ahhhow my eye hurts just remembering Pronger.

Great, so just about everything I said holds true. Thanks.
- prock

Not really. I said why would the NHL allow the % to go from 54 in 05-06 to 57% now and you said the % never went up.

One prob with that. A draft would be illegal under an anti-trust post de-cert. Everyone would be a UFA free to go wherever they chose, not to have a fantasy draft.

It essentially would be UEFA rules for club soccer teams in europe where you bid on players and then once you have secured their rights you negotiate a contract with them.
- tboog6

I know the legalities i just it would be fun to draft all the players. Im an oil fan living in Calgary and my wife busts my balls all the time how her Flames are better and oilers are potential and nothing more. Just want to see how many oil prospects go before a single flame

Not really. I said why would the NHL allow the % to go from 54 in 05-06 to 57% now and you said the % never went up.
- Lahey

....

Allowed it? You realize that with the last CBA it was reduced significantly from pre-salary cap levels, right? The last CBA didn't "(frank)" themself, it was a trend in the right direction, just not far enough.
- prock

True.

Of course it did? Did you think the PA would accept an agreement that wouldn't allow salaries to increase?

- prock

True.

Why would they offer that? First, because it was a massive improvement over what was happening. And second, under the economic conditions at the time, it appeared to an agreement that could work reasonably well (which it has). The economic environment in North America has changed, which has made it more difficult for some of the weaker American teams. Third, after a year and a half of negotiating, they likely thought that was the best they were going to get, for that round, and could probably get a little further next time around.

- prock

All true.

Do you think, if they thought they could have gotten 50% last time out, they would have just said "nah, screw it, givem the extra 7%, we don't really need it."?

At some point, either side has to start thinking about whether they're losing more by sitting out, rather than taking the best deal they can at the time. It's exactly what's happening now.
- prock

100% true.

I assume you're likely referring to a portion of actual salaries vs cap hit, due to some of the front loaded contracts. That's the only thing I can think of that may cause that to happen.

- prock

Untrue.

If that's the case, I imagine that a) that would be pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, b) whether it increased by a couple of percent due to loopholes in the CBA or not, it's still some 20% lower than it was pre-CBA, and c) I believe that's supposed to flatten itself out from escrow payments anyway (but I could be wrong on that).

- prock

The first is true. Second is also true. Third, not 100% sure still.

So, your point?

Stop talking about Hall, Nuge, and Eberle like they are the best players on the best team in the NHL. They are a bubble team in the AHL like breaking that team up would be the biggest loss in the NHL

NHLPA is full of it