you are missing my main point (i apologize if i dont address everything you said, tough to do with these longer posts)

anyways i feel that what owners stand to lose in their tv deal is far less than what they lose in a player favoured CBA.

and i disagree 100% that they do not need to change the way salaries are worked.. richards for example.. you kidding me? you think he ever intends on playing out that contract?

no way.

this is what needs to happen..

A: players accept more stringent rules when it comes to signing new contracts (i do agree that current contracts should be paid out in full.. the teams who signed them did so knowingly)

or

B: simply stop averaging out salaries. your cap hit is what you earn. problem solved.

the nhl wont give in til that loophole is closed somehow.. its all about how it gets closed.. the PA should recognize this and table an offer that closes it in a way they prefer.. so long as it gets closed i think the NHL would bite..

but that contractual loophole needs to close..thats just the simple truth of it. like it or not i dont think the owners will fold til they get that.
- Dozzer

Mike Richards or Brad Richards. The point is that if that 5% variance is there, the teams won't sign player to long term deals, because they can no longer use low years on the backend to lower the Cap hit. It no longer benefits them to do so. They don't nee to limit contract years to do it. That 5% variance takes care of that.

blame wont get a deal done..

fact is its both sides fault period.

simplest solution would be to hire a third party mediator.. the guy who worked out the NFL deal has stated publicly he would do it for free.

a neutral mediator would get this done since there would be no bias.. he would deem what is fair and both sides would have to accept it.
- Dozzer

well the problem is that neither side is interested in what's fair for the other side.

Yep, those deals are cap circumvention, the GM's and owners submarining their own vaunted 'cap system', then when CBA runs out, they come and want to take more from the players to fix it. It's Bullpoop.
- triggermartin

but its not ALL owners and teams doing this

is it fair to punish the teams who refrained from those deals because their peers cant help themselves?

no it isnt.

is it fair to punish the players? also no.

but there is a problem, and it needs to be resolved.. the last CBA proved you cant rely on the owners and agents to keep it in check so rules need to be put into place.

As you say "if" that is what the NHL has proposed... why would the NHLPA not put that part of negotiations to bed.... your right that is a great deal if offered because the 5% is generous considering the damage done to the game. The fact is the 50/50 split is not done.. why becuase players continue to want more. Free agency and arbitration is not done why... The players believe it is their right to sign long contracts which are heavily front loaded. Do I like the fact that the NHL needs to limit contract length... no... but the reason for this is to protect all team within the NHL. The easiest solution would be to fold 10 team, but that can't happen. It is important for the NHL to get their 50/50 split, but it is also equally important that contract length are shorterned and front loaded deals are eliminated. The players believe that since the have "somewhat" agreed to 50/50 that everything should go their way.
- TSTER

No it's not if that is what the NHL has proposed, that is what they've proposed. They aren't putting that part to bed because the players are not going to take less on the economics part and also lose all of the contract issues they gained in the last CBA. So that is why the PA countered with a deal that sees salaries go up. The League doesn't need to put limits on contract terms to eliminate front loaded deals.

Mike Richards or Brad Richards. The point is that if that 5% variance is there, the teams won't sign player to long term deals, because they can no longer use low years on the backend to lower the Cap hit. It no longer benefits them to do so. They don't nee to limit contract years to do it. That 5% variance takes care of that.
- MJL

5% isnt enough.

brad richards i was talking about btw.

the easiest solution to me, is you make your cap hit, period.. stop messing around with this.

the PA wont like it because that would reduce payouts.. so give them something that allows the star players to earn more.. like franchise player status.

let me be clear here.. i dont think the owners are right in this.. i just think they have less to lose (though yes, i will admit that both sides stand to lose something)

well the problem is that neither side is interested in what's fair for the other side.
- DoubleDown

exactly.. too much me me me going on.. common sense says bring in a mediator

REMEMBER! The players hired Fehr to get them the best deal he could, not to sit back and watch the NHL throw offers out there without legit response while the players lose money.
- Eklund

The best case scenario is now a 60 game season, so when you consider that the pre-season was also cancelled (which contributes to HRR) as well as all the ancillary HRR already lost (beer, t-shirts, etc.), the players have already lost more than if they had signed the best offer at the start of the season (50% immediately, meaning a loss of about 11% for the first two years).

The players have already lost.

The best case scenario is now a 60 game season, so when you consider that the pre-season was also cancelled (which contributes to HRR) as well as all the ancillary HRR already lost (beer, t-shirts, etc.), the players have already lost more than if they had signed the best offer at the start of the season (50% immediately, meaning a loss of about 11% for the first two years).

The players have already lost.
- Atomic Wedgie

and the sooner they realize they will keep losing the better.. unless Fehr and the union have something up their sleeve

i think the NHL will be happy as long as they get protection against front-loaded deals and will relinquish in many other contracting areas. once you introduce that 5% rule, you change a lot of things about NHL contracts. you won't need a "years" cap because no owner will want to be paying $7 million to a 39-year-old.
- DoubleDown

Exactly. That's all the NHL needs is that 5% rule. Let the players keep the rest. There is a deal there.

Exactly. That's all the NHL needs is that 5% rule. Let the players keep the rest. There is a deal there.
- MJL

oh i am sorry.. i didnt get what you meant by 5%

you mean a 5% variance from year to year.. i thought you meant a 5% variance on a single years payout based on HRR

slow start to the morning i guess.. my bad

Yep, those deals are cap circumvention, the GM's and owners submarining their own vaunted 'cap system', then when CBA runs out, they come and want to take more from the players to fix it. It's Bullpoop.
- triggermartin

Exactly. That's all the NHL needs is that 5% rule. Let the players keep the rest. There is a deal there.
- MJL

i believe the NHL will let them keep most. but i also believe this lockout will end within a few weeks. so im probably wrong on both counts.

The best case scenario is now a 60 game season, so when you consider that the pre-season was also cancelled (which contributes to HRR) as well as all the ancillary HRR already lost (beer, t-shirts, etc.), the players have already lost more than if they had signed the best offer at the start of the season (50% immediately, meaning a loss of about 11% for the first two years).

The players have already lost.
- Atomic Wedgie

So have the Owners also lost. The bottom line is that if there is a Season this year, both sides have lost. Nobody will win.

So have the Owners also lost. The bottom line is that if there is a Season this year, both sides have lost. Nobody will win.
- MJL

But 1) I have no emotional attachment to the owners; and 2) the owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss.

But 1) I have no emotional attachment to the owners; and 2) the owners are in a much better position to absorb the loss.
- Atomic Wedgie

and that is the be all end all of this entire situation

that works too.. that way.. it keeps teams from bailing out on multiple contracts but it gives the teams the advantage of backing out of a deal if the player doesnt live up to expectations.

something needs to be put in place to make players accountable for not meeting up to their expectations when they signed their deal. hell.. make the expectations a provision of the deal.
- Dozzer

I have always thought that performance based contracts would be great in the NHL. Eliminate signing bonuses and have a standard performance based bonus. Make the guaranteed contact size lower and only that count against the cap.

20 Goals - 2 Mil
30 Goals - 3 Mil
40 Goals - 5 Mil
50 Goals - 7 Mil

Do that for Goals, assists, points. For Goalies do Save percentage , GAA and Shutouts. It would never happen, but it would bring salaries down where they need to be IMO.

Ehrmagerd Herrky BUrrz

I have always thought that performance based contracts would be great in the NHL. Eliminate signing bonuses and have a standard performance based bonus. Make the guaranteed contact size lower and only that count against the cap.

20 Goals - 2 Mil
30 Goals - 3 Mil
40 Goals - 5 Mil
50 Goals - 7 Mil

Do that for Goals, assists, points. For Goalies do Save percentage , GAA and Shutouts. It would never happen, but it would bring salaries down where they need to be IMO.
- Jimmygrazz

its a good idea.. but you would have to have contracts with varying different performance based deals.. for example.. a deal based on point production alone wouldnt benefit a stay at home d-man, or PKing third liner.

but yeah, that would be a great idea.. it would help to ensure players show up every night too

its a good idea.. but you would have to have contracts with varying different performance based deals.. for example.. a deal based on point production alone wouldnt benefit a stay at home d-man, or PKing third liner.

but yeah, that would be a great idea.. it would help to ensure players show up every night too
- Dozzer

True, but you could just sign those type of guys to a little higher base salary. So sign Giroux to a base of 3 Million and sign Matt Read for 2 Million. You know Giroux is gonna earn a lot more than Read at the end of the year, but Read still gets respectable money. Just pulled those names out, don't kill me..lol

I have always thought that performance based contracts would be great in the NHL. Eliminate signing bonuses and have a standard performance based bonus. Make the guaranteed contact size lower and only that count against the cap.

20 Goals - 2 Mil
30 Goals - 3 Mil
40 Goals - 5 Mil
50 Goals - 7 Mil

Do that for Goals, assists, points. For Goalies do Save percentage , GAA and Shutouts. It would never happen, but it would bring salaries down where they need to be IMO.
- Jimmygrazz

this wont work because this gives no incentive for a good player to sign with a bad team.

this wont work because this gives no incentive for a good player to sign with a bad team.
- joshs

That's a good point. They could still offer them a higher base, but I see your point.

True, but you could just sign those type of guys to a little higher base salary. So sign Giroux to a base of 3 Million and sign Matt Read for 2 Million. You know Giroux is gonna earn a lot more than Read at the end of the year, but Read still gets respectable money. Just pulled those names out, don't kill me..lol
- Jimmygrazz

hahah that would work too.. but again, like you said.. that will never happen

makes too much sense

This will never be agreed to and is pie in the sky union bashing nonsense. The NHLPA are there to protect player contract rights. They will not give those away. NHL hockey players have a short career window. The owners who sign players to lousy contracts should be held responsible for being lousy businessmen. My own team has done a spectacular job of it for 40+ years. My beef with the Leafs is exactly that - they have been colossally mismanaged for 40+ years.
- triggermartin

It is definitely pie in the sky but it is not union bashing nonsense. It is what would be best for the game but would only come at great cost. Many union members vowed to retire before ever playing under a salary cap yet here we are. Many of those same union members lost millions fighting the salary cap while gaining nothing. Not a single player playing in 2004 gained anything by fighting the salary cap and sitting out a year. The ironic part is that the very thing they so reviled is responsible for the skyrocketing salaries today.

Imagine if teams were able to more quickly turn around their fortunes like the NFL. It would attract larger fan bases to those franchises, increasing revenue, etc. The only downfall is that it would make players more accountable for their play, we can't have that.

Unions do protect their members from unfair practices but also by and large make it impossible to hold their members accountable for anything, that is the downside.

True, but you could just sign those type of guys to a little higher base salary. So sign Giroux to a base of 3 Million and sign Matt Read for 2 Million. You know Giroux is gonna earn a lot more than Read at the end of the year, but Read still gets respectable money. Just pulled those names out, don't kill me..lol
- Jimmygrazz

No offence, but this is the worst idea I've read anywhere and least likely to happen in any league, anywhere, ever

So have the Owners also lost. The bottom line is that if there is a Season this year, both sides have lost. Nobody will win.
- MJL

But do the players understand that or is it all about sticking it to the owners?