Eklund: Here's to Soft Landings... here is the latest..

..

..
- aightwebang17

...

...

Let's get this done so I can drink more on Saturday nights

... .. .......

say hello to receiving a mediocre product on the ice and paying higher ticket prices than anyone else. This CBA will destroy the top 8 and in a sense is not fair. If they want all teams to be on equal footing than they should make ticket prices across the league the same. I pay more money to go see a better product from my club out there.....Not to feed Bettmans bastards. League parity can kiss my ass. . If it weren for the top 8 the bottom 8 would cease to exist.

say hello to receiving a mediocre product on the ice and paying higher ticket prices than anyone else. This CBA will destroy the top 8 and in a sense is not fair. If they want all teams to be on equal footing than they should make ticket prices across the league the same. I pay more money to go see a better product from my club out there.....Not to feed Bettmans bastards. League parity can kiss my ass. . If it weren for the top 8 the bottom 8 would cease to exist.
- Philly1980

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You still don't think teams that make the most money don't have an advantage?

Do you see 'the bottom 8' ever spending to the cap? You really think Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Winnipeg, NYI, etc are ever going to be cap teams?

Conversely, do you ever see the 'top 8', unless they are 'rebuilding' NOT spending to the cap?

There is still a clear advantage to the teams with bigger markets/richer owners, and there always will be.

The point of a cap is to make sure it doesn't become like baseball where you have an all star team playing a triple A team. Even if you're a fan of the all star team, surely it's gotta get old, beating down teams that have no business even being in the league.

there is a seat cushion factory in ohio.

Eklund: Here's to Soft Landings... here is the latest..
- Eklund

Something to keep in mind: according to a report I read (so I have no idea if it is true or not, but let's just go with it) only 60% of NHL players are currently under contract.

So the remaining 40% shouldn't have any concerns about a soft landing.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. You still don't think teams that make the most money don't have an advantage?

Do you see 'the bottom 8' ever spending to the cap? You really think Phoenix, Florida, Carolina, Nashville, Winnipeg, NYI, etc are ever going to be cap teams?

Conversely, do you ever see the 'top 8', unless they are 'rebuilding' NOT spending to the cap?

There is still a clear advantage to the teams with bigger markets/richer owners, and there always will be.

The point of a cap is to make sure it doesn't become like baseball where you have an all star team playing a triple A team. Even if you're a fan of the all star team, surely it's gotta get old, beating down teams that have no business even being in the league.
- Charliebox

My problem is not the cap......i agree 50% is more than enough. My problem with the CBA is all of the rules that pertain to contract restrictions. if a team makes a mistake and can afford to bury a contract they should be able to do so. 5 years contract length is just (frank)ing ridiculous.

One of most interesting aspects of NHL proposal is aimed at punishing clubs more than players, with regard to existing back-diving deals. Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left. ... If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit.

>> TSN's Bob McKenzie

The bold is what has me on fire. so if richards and carter were to retire tommorow....flyers would have to take the cap hit for the kings for the next ten years....lol what a joke

My problem is not the cap......i agree 50% is more than enough. My problem with the CBA is all of the rules that pertain to contract restrictions.
- Philly1980

Like what? 5 yr contract length?

Entry Level terms?

I don't get it.

not sure where this "optimism" is coming from. mainstream media has expressed cautious optimism at best, outright pessism at worst.

The bold is what has me on fire.
- Philly1980

If I were you, I would be worried.

I sincerely doubt JVR plays more than 2 years...

If I were you, I would be worried.

I sincerely doubt JVR plays more than 2 years...
- Atomic Wedgie

that deal is looking better and better for you guys lol

The bold is what has me on fire. so if richards and carter were to retire tommorow....flyers would have to take the cap hit for the kings for the next ten years....lol what a joke
- Philly1980

There's no way that would be written in! It doesn't even make sense!

I wouldn't worry about that.

The part where if a player retires on your club, you're on the hook is a good thing. Whatever club the player retires on should be on the hook, regardless of who signed the deal. If you're worried about that, don't trade for aging players with long-term contracts.

not sure where this "optimism" is coming from. mainstream media has expressed cautious optimism at best, outright pessism at worst.
- scotch_tape

Doesnt sound too optimistic to me

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542


The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:

- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."

- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."

The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:

- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:

- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.

- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.

- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.

- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.

- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."

The bold is what has me on fire. so if richards and carter were to retire tommorow....flyers would have to take the cap hit for the kings for the next ten years....lol what a joke
- Philly1980

I just posted this in the Vancouver thread, but here's something to chew on:

Let's say Vancouver trades Luongo to Toronto.

Six years later, Lou has been relegated to backup, and has hamstring problems.

Two weeks before the trade deadline, Calgary and Vancouver are fighting for the final playoff spot in the Western Conference.

What's to stop Calgary from trading for Lu, and then forcing him to retire?

Would Vancouver immediately have to shed salary to remain under the cap?

Oh boy, this could get really messy. Burkie should get some barn rental companies on speed dial.

"As I said in my article where I wanted to abolish the percentage concept all together and instead just put set dollar figures...it is the amount of money the players get that matters..not the percentage of the money. If the League continues to grow at this pace the percentages can fall, but the players could still see their salaries rise. No one is giving up anything in that scenario and the owners get to make more money by taking more risk and spending more money marketing the game. That is where we are heading..."

So if players salaries rise, but receive a lower percentage of HRR than they currently get, no one is giving up anything? Wouldn't the players be giving up the difference between what they get, and what they would have gotten using the percentage?

I think I know what you're saying, but put this way it's not very clear. That's like Mitt Romney saying "yeah, but my one-point plan is super awesome."

Doesnt sound too optimistic to me

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542


The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:

- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."

- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."

The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:

- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:

- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.

- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.

- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.

- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.

- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
- Stalemate

I would NOT worry about this stuff. His words yesterday, 'excellent starting point' said it all.

Now it's just a game. A game that will be played for a week or so.

They'll be playing 82 games starting Nov 2nd.

Doesnt sound too optimistic to me

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542


The first official NHLPA reaction to the NHL offer is in -- NHLPA executive director Don Fehr sent a letter to all players and agents last night -- and not unexpectedly the league's proposal wasn't met with great enthusiasm.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- "The proposal does represent movement from their last negotiating position, but still represents very large, immediate and continuing concessions by players to owners, in salary and benefits (the Players' Share) and in individual player contracting rules."

On some of the specific aspects of the NHL proposal:

- "They want to "clarify" HRR definition and rules. It is not immediately clear what this means, but so far all of their ideas in this regard have had the effect of reducing HRR, and thereby lowering salaries."

- "The Players' Share is reduced to 50 per cent from 57 per cent immediately -- this season. This is a reduction in the share of 12.3 per cent. On last year's revenue numbers, this would mean that players' salaries would be cut by about $231 million."

- "The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

- "Finally, they also proposed that the players could appeal supplemental or commissioner discipline to a neutral arbitration, on a "clearly erroneous" standard, which, as a practical manner, makes it very unlikely that any decision would be overturned."

The final two paragraphs of the letter sums up where Fehr believes the process is at and reinforces the players' position on all issues:

- "We do not yet know whether this proposal is a serious attempt to negotiate an agreement, or just another step down the road. The next several days will be, in large part, an effort to discover the answer to that question."

- "Bear in mind the approach that the Players have taken to these negotiations. It is:

- Given the enormous concessions players made in the last round, plus 7 years of record revenue reaching $3.3 billion last season, there is no reason for a reduction in the amount the players receive.

- Players are willing to take reduced share going forward so that the NHL can grow out of whatever problems some franchises face.

- The player contracting rights secured in the last negotiations should be, at minimum, maintained.

- Revenue sharing needs to be enhanced and structured so as to encourage revenue growth by the receiving teams.

- The overall agreement has to be fair and equitable for both parties. Bargaining is both give and take."
- Stalemate

Thank you...they should not touch contracts or anything else..... 50/50 is more than fair.

The part I don't like about the CBA is the idea of trading cap space.

I KNOW the players will love it because that means there'll be the max amount of money spent on players.

I just think that if you get into trading cap space, then there's almost no point in having a cap. We'll be back to having some teams with awesome young players (stockpiling draft picks and prospects) who will later lose them to free agency because the 'rich' teams will inflate the prices on stars by having more cap space.

Players salaries are always judged against other 'similar' players in the league. But what if one team has more cap to play with? Obivously their salaries will be more inflated than, say a guy in Carolina who's going to arbitration. That guy in Carolina will point to 'similar' players in NY or Philly or Toronto, and say, "I should be paid the same". It will screw over the small-market teams and make the cap almost meaningless.

That said, it would be kinda fun to see the Leafs and Rangers trade all their prospects for cap space, then sign aging stars in the offseason to ridiculous deals, only later realizing they are past their prime and the team has no chemistry.

In the letter, which breaks down a summary of the NHL offer, Fehr writes the following:

- "Simply put, the owners' new proposal, while not quite as Draconian as their previous proposals, still represents enormous reductions in player salaries and individual contracting rights. As you will see, at the 5 per cent industry growth rate the owners predict, the salary reduction over six years exceeds $1.6 billion. What do the owners offer in return?"

- Stalemate

690 jobs a year for NHLPA members.

The part I don't like about the CBA is the idea of trading cap space.

I KNOW the players will love it because that means there'll be the max amount of money spent on players.

I just think that if you get into trading cap space, then there's almost no point in having a cap. We'll be back to having some teams with awesome young players (stockpiling draft picks and prospects) who will later lose them to free agency because the 'rich' teams will inflate the prices on stars by having more cap space.

Players salaries are always judged against other 'similar' players in the league. But what if one team has more cap to play with? Obivously their salaries will be more inflated than, say a guy in Carolina who's going to arbitration. That guy in Carolina will point to 'similar' players in NY or Philly or Toronto, and say, "I should be paid the same". It will screw over the small-market teams and make the cap almost meaningless.

That said, it would be kinda fun to see the Leafs and Rangers trade all their prospects for cap space, then sign aging stars in the offseason to ridiculous deals, only later realizing they are past their prime and the team has no chemistry.
- Charliebox

well good for them they should be worth what the market pays for them .... People in carolina do not pay the same ticket prices that i do.....sorry but thats the truth....bottom line is fan support for a team drives revenue and allows them to pay more for players. Why punish a teams fan base. Unless ticket prices across the league are all the same, i could care less if those teams cant keep their stars.

All sounds nice and peachy, until you read Fehr's letter to the players. He seems content on continuing to not negotiate, and seems to think this is not a serious offer.