Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]more details TORONTO - The National Hockey League Players' Association has tabled its first offer in the latest round of collective bargaining talks with the NHL. The union says its offer to the league includes a smaller percentage of revenues for players and an expanded revenue sharing program to help struggling teams. Union leader Donald Fehr says players could give up as much as US$465 million in revenue under the proposal if the league continues to grow at an average rate. If the league continues the strong growth shown over the past two seasons, he says the amount could reach $800 million.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    both sides are pretty good at posturing.  Hard to make much from this as both sides disagree what constitutes "revenue".  
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : No it's not. Part of the function of the players who are attending is to inform other players of the details and developments of the negotiations. That's why up until now most of the players in attendance have been the union reps of the individual teams. If a player is being tasked with talking to his teammates about what is going on, I'd like it to be a guy with the intellectual wherewithal to understand what is being talked about.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    This isn't real deep stuff red. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : This isn't real deep stuff red. 
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    It's a negotiation that involves 30 ownership groups, an organization that employs close to 15,000 people, $3.3 billion in revenues, 30 franchise locations, a union of 700 members plus an equal if not greater number of prospects that will be future union members who need consideration, and about 1,200 major league or two-way contracts that range from $50,000 to nearly $10 million per annum. It's not exactly simple.

    Just saying that maybe the guy with a degree in sports business management (think it's a master's but not sure) should maybe be at the meetings about managing a sports business.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : both sides are pretty good at posturing.  Hard to make much from this as both sides disagree what constitutes "revenue".  Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    That wasn't posturing at all, that was a real good alternative offered. Also it didn't touch the revenue sharing that the owners wanted in the there offer.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : It's a negotiation that involves 30 ownership groups, an organization that employs close to 15,000 people, $3.3 billion in revenues, 30 franchise locations, a union of 700 members plus an equal if not greater number of prospects that will be future union members who need consideration, and about 1,200 major league or two-way contracts that range from $50,000 to nearly $10 million per annum. It's not exactly simple. Just saying that maybe the guy with a degree in sports business management (think it's a master's but not sure) should maybe be at the meetings about managing a sports business.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    There'll be lots of MBA's around to assist those without the "intellectual wherewithal".  I wouldn't worry too much about it.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:[QUOTE]Proposal is only for 3 yers, with a 4th yearoption (the option would be to revert to the current CBA in year 4). Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    "The Canadian Press is reporting that there is a luxury tax included in the proposal that would allow some teams to go above the cap, and some to stay below.

    The NHLPA proposal would call for a three years of players accepting a lower percentage of the revenue and then players have the option to revert back to their current share (57%) in the fourth year."

     

    That is interesting...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : That wasn't posturing at all, that was a real good alternative offered. Also it didn't touch the revenue sharing that the owners wanted in the there offer.
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Oh?    What I'm getting is pretty sketchy.  The TSN stuff suggests otherwise.  It states the PA has cleverly thrown the ball back at the league, and suggested they would help the have not teams, but only if the rich teams would ante up too.  Please share anything more you have.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    The San Jose Mercury reports the PA has agreed to limiting contracts to 5 years.  If true, that's huge
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]The San Jose Mercury reports the PA has agreed to limiting contracts to 5 years.  If true, that's huge
    Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    link? I couldn't find anything about that on the Mercury's website, and I haven't seen a new tweet from their hockey reporter in a day.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : link? I couldn't find anything about that on the Mercury's website, and I haven't seen a new tweet from their hockey reporter in a day.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Red, it's also in the Herald
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    Which Herald, because it's not in the Boston Herald. If you actually did read this, just share the link.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : link? I couldn't find anything about that on the Mercury's website, and I haven't seen a new tweet from their hockey reporter in a day.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    when I look at it again, it appears I'm mistaken.  sorry.  kind of a confusing way to write an article though.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_21308848/crosby-ovechkin-attend-nhl-labor-talks-toronto

    "An NHL proposal last month called for a significant decrease for players in revenue share by introducing new contract restrictions, including a five-year cap on deals. The NHLPA has proposed a three-year deal for a CBA with an option for a fourth, Fehr said."

    There haven't been any reports as to the NHLPA refusing the 5 year limit either...
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]Which Herald, because it's not in the Boston Herald. If you actually did read this, just share the link.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/hockey/other_nhl/view/20120814hockey_players_makes_1st_proposal_to_nhl_owners/
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    Ok, I get the confusion. And there have been reports that NHLPA opposed that in their proposal.

    3h

    Current system re: player salary lengths, free agency, would not be changed, Fehr says

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    I find the $250 million in revenue sharing number interesting. Under the current plan there are, based on preliminary numbers from this past season on income, ten teams that would be paying into the revenue sharing system -
    Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Bruins, Wings, Hawks, Canucks, Oilers, Jets and Flyers. Unless they change how that transfer system works significantly, those ten teams could see a major hit to their annual operating income.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]i find the 250 million in revenue sharing number interesting. under the current plan there are, based on preliminary numbers from this past season on income, ten teams that would be paying into the revenue sharing system - leafs, habs, rangers, bruins, wings, hawks, canucks, oilers, jets and flyers. unless they change how that transfer system works significantly, those ten teams could see a major hit to the annual operating income. and sorry for the lack of capitalization, my shift button is being stubborn.
    Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm really anxious to learn the particulars.  From what we've heard so far, I only see a union crafty enough to throw out some things that could start  infighting on the other side.  Some of these big numbers being thrown around can become quite miniscule when we're looking at a current league cap of  around 8.4 billion over the 4 years.  Add in these ridiculous growth factors(based on the last 4 years), and we're easily up to around 17 billion. Is that 250 shared by the teams, or is that the PA's portion?  If it's all the PA's, it could still be as little as a 1.5% concession.
    The luxury tax is interesting to me.  I feel it's bad for the game, good for the players, bad for the solid owners, and good for those that have a hard time reaching the floor, so that'll spark some debate.  The big teams have it about as good as it gets now.  They can't get carried away with spending, which protects them from each other, and they're not asked to do much, propping the other guys up. 
    I'm not sure the owners are as solidly behind each other this time, and that could be the unions strategy.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    The Owners are going to want at least one of the measures that would remove or limit the impact of heavily front-loaded contracts.  I'm sure the official PA stance on all of them is "we won't budge."  It would be interesting to find out which ones they more adamantly oppose.  I'm thinking they would take even-salary-per-year contracts long before accepting a five-year limit.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    DrCC, if that is the case the compromise would be made quickly.  Thanks to all for the feeds ala Sandog and Red!!  Revenue sharing between the owners and players can be compromised in my view, the length of contracts will be a sticking point (capitulation on the part of the NHLPA as it is obvious that long term contracts was not the intent of the original Cap CBA of 2004), and lastly I might speculate the minimum Cap is going to be a dog fight.  The wealthy owners want to lower the minimum Cap and the players do want an increase for obvious reasons (duly edited upon an interruption... sorry to those that read my carp).  I tend to think the owners have a better argument when those "minimum" teams do not put fans in the stands.  The "Kraft" factor is a play, what owner is going to lead the NHL to start on time or near that time! I do not see any owners with that kind of conviction.   In reality: the thought of failure is more dangerous to the growth of the NHL than it is to it's parts ie. the owners and NHLPA.  
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:[QUOTE] Under the current plan there are, based on preliminary numbers from this past season on income, ten teams that would be paying into the revenue sharing system - Leafs, Habs, Rangers, Bruins, Wings, Hawks, Canucks, Oilers, Jets and Flyers. Unless they change how that transfer system works significantly, those ten teams could see a major hit to their annual operating income.Posted by red75[/QUOTE]

    Well then Red the NHLs richest owners will have to start adding teams to the list of "NHL run teams" right next to Phoenix if they don't read Fehr's proposal carefully.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]DrCC, if that is the case the compromise would be made quickly.  Thanks to all for the feeds ala Sandog and Red!!  Revenue sharing between the owners and players can be compromised in my view, the length of contracts will be a sticking point (capitulation on the part of the NHLPA as it is obvious that long term contracts was not the intent of the original Cap CBA of 2004, and lastly I might speculate the minimum Cap is going to be a dog fight.  The wealthy owners do not want to lower the minimum Cap and the players do for obvious reasons.  I tend to think the owners have a better argument when those "minimum" teams do not put fans in the stands.  The "Kraft" factor is a play, what owner is going to lead the NHL to start on time or near that time! I do not see any owners with that kind of conviction.   In reality: the thought of failure is more dangerous to the growth of the NHL than it is to it's parts ie. the owners and NHLPA.  
    Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]
    Oh, I doubt that's the only difference between the sides.  And thinking about it more, conceding to contracts with constant yearly value means no more signing bonuses.  That's a big deal.
    I'd say revenue sharing and the minimum will go together.  Greater revenue sharing means a higher floor will work.  Unfortunately, both benefit the players, while only the "poorer" owners will want significant revenue sharing.  Could be a tough part.

    The bolded part is a very good, and interesting point.  It makes me a bit less optimistic about this.  I guess we will see how the Owners respond.
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    Another little tidbit for those who feel the players should be happy to take another financial hit, cuz they don't "own" the business.
    Bettmans deal is about 8 mil a year.  It's pretty much doubled in the last 4 years.

    I'm not optimistic.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:[QUOTE] Bettmans deal is about 8 mil a year.  It's pretty much doubled in the last 4 years. Posted by stevegm[/QUOTE]

    "The Sports Business Journal reports Bettman earned a base salary of $6,090,173, including $1,711,930 in other compensation, $155,782 in deferred compensation and $25,868 in benefits totalling $7,983,753 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011"

    Peanuts in comparison to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig (more than $20 million) and the NFL's Roger Goodell (around $20 million). Bettman's old boss David Stern's salary is around the same.

    Absolute total fail when trying to imply Bettman might do something to squash a good deal for both sides. His salary gets a bump in bonuses when there is an increase in league revenue. You need the league to have it's doors open to increase revenue.

    Move along...
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?

    In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Holding your breath for Fehr's alternative? : "The Sports Business Journal reports Bettman earned a base salary of $6,090,173, including $1,711,930 in other compensation, $155,782 in deferred compensation and $25,868 in benefits totalling $7,983,753 during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011" Peanuts in comparison to MLB Commissioner Bud Selig (more than $20 million) and the NFL's Roger Goodell (around $20 million). Bettman's old boss David Stern's salary is around the same. Absolute total fail when trying to imply Bettman might do something to squash a good deal for both sides. His salary gets a bump in bonuses when there is an increase in league revenue. You need the league to have it's doors open to increase revenue. Move along...
    Posted by SanDogBrewin[/QUOTE]

    Oh Geez !!  I'm not implying Bettman will attempt to squash a "good deal for both sides".  What I'm implying is that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.  If an executive of the league can enjoy that kind of salary, and that kind of increase, why should the absolute most gifted players on the planet be rolled back...again.
    Get off this board and go get your grade 6.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share