Do we have a CBA strife thread yet?

[Eddie_Shack]

Don't always agree with Simmons, but he makes some good points here...

Let me see if I have this right: The NHL wants the players to take an 11% cut in revenues. So, I presume, ticket prices will be cut 11% across the board. Or not ... The NHL is also pushing for contracts no longer than five years in length, which is funny, really, considering the very same owners pushing for this are the ones who keep signing players to decade-long deals ... From the previous lockout: A conversation with an NHL GM: “I can’t make it on a $35-million salary cap. We’ll go bust if that happens.” The same GM now operates in an NHL with a $70-million salary cap and is still in business ...

 

[flyersfan4706]

Fucking shit. I thought maybe if I ignored it then it would not be happening. But then I made myself read this thread. And fuck.

 

[tsawchuk]

I just read the "proposal"....if you want to call it that.

I understand about posturing during negotiations.....but the only posture I can see from that is Buttman dropping trou, bending over and spreading his ass cheeks at the NHLPA.

I haven't liked Buttman since day 1, and my dislike of him steadily grows year after year.
I've never wished death on anyone, but can he just have a little stroke or something?

That crape proposal sounded like the ghosts of Jack Adams or Harold Ballard wrote it.

 

[dash]

I understand about posturing during negotiations.....but the only posture I can see from that is Buttman dropping trou, bending over and spreading his ass cheeks at the NHLPA.

This. What happened to the supposed "working as partners" Gary? I'm not saying the current CBA is perfect, but you already made the players take a hard one up the poop chute in 2005. I guess you really want a hat trick of lockouts, eh Gary?

 

[mooger_35]

Down Goes Brown: NHL owners' other leaked CBA demands

 

[DChero]

We'll have to make sure that any new rules don't result in the league losing star players to organizations that can just spend whatever they want without being limited by a salary cap, such as the KHL or the Kitchener Rangers.

That was my favorite.

 

[dash]

DGB ended it with a bang with his last two points:

• While it was probably a bad idea to invite the team mascots to the negotiation sessions in the first place, we'd still love to know why a drunken Youppi keeps trying to leap over the table and choke out Donald Fehr.


• The owners are demanding a face-to-face meeting with those responsible for continually screwing up every new CBA that gets negotiated, so I guess someone will need to send us a big shipment of mirrors.

 

[puckhead]

excellent read:

Hard to take NHL's harsh offer seriously | Hockey | CBC Sports

 

[jstewismybastardson]

excellent read:

Hard to take NHL's harsh offer seriously | Hockey | CBC Sports

and then theres this which isnt really lol

NHL offer a reasonable start in CBA negotiations - The Hockey News

 

[DChero]

and then theres this which isnt really lol

NHL offer a reasonable start in CBA negotiations - The Hockey News

Hahahaha!!! /mustspreadrep

 

[Comeds]

lol, if the numbers are not hard line set in stone numbers I think the owners offer was a fair starting point.

reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 % - I think it should be closer to 50%
10 seasons in NHL before being UFA. - The current 7 actually seems short to me
contracts limited to 5 years - I like it at 5, 6 or 7 would be OK too
no more salary arbitration. - does anyone like arbitration?
entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3 - I am OK with this, 4 is not unreasonable either

Naturally if the NHL does not negotiate I think they are being idiots, but as is I do not think its a terrible first offer.

 

[esls79]

Get rid of free agency, institute the reserve clause, make all players born in Quebec property of the Habs and the rest of english speaking players property of the Leafs. Then the Blackhawks, Red Wings, Bruins, and Rangers get the scraps. It's the only fair way to do things.

 

[dash]

Get rid of free agency, institute the reserve clause, make all players born in Quebec property of the Habs and the rest of english speaking players property of the Leafs. Then the Blackhawks, Red Wings, Bruins, and Rangers get the scraps. It's the only fair way to do things.

Looks like the ghost of Dick Irwin Sr. has arisen in our friend esls...Anybody know an exorcist?

 

[KennyBanyeah]

lol, if the numbers are not hard line set in stone numbers I think the owners offer was a fair starting point.

reduce players hockey related revenues to 46% from 57 % - I think it should be closer to 50%
10 seasons in NHL before being UFA. - The current 7 actually seems short to me
contracts limited to 5 years - I like it at 5, 6 or 7 would be OK too
no more salary arbitration. - does anyone like arbitration?
entry-level contract 5 years instead of 3 - I am OK with this, 4 is not unreasonable either

Naturally if the NHL does not negotiate I think they are being idiots, but as is I do not think its a terrible first offer.

I basically agree with all of what Comeds is proposing with the exception of the ELC. The problem, from the owners' prospective is the second contract getting too big.

The ELC should be 2 years. Elite players will generally establish themselves in this time and can earn that big second contract. Most players who end up being above average will have to sign a bridge contract between their ELC and their first HIGHLY lucrative deal. They'd have the option to gamble and sign one year deals or look for some security in their early to mid-20s before they go for the big ticket. As long as the limits on RFA and UFA status aren't shortened this works for both sides, IMO.

 

[sherbert1421]

i will be shocked if we see hockey played on time. both the owners and players can go fuck themselves. all a bunch of greedy bastards.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

i dont see where its been mentioned in this thread but its probably the biggest kick in the nuts out of all proposed changes the NHL presented to the NHLPA

redefinition of HRR

I heard yesterday the "big" teams ... ie the teams that make money and are paying into revenue sharing want to remove the revenue from local tv and radio broadcasting deals from the definition of "hockey related revenue" ... among other things

proposed drop in the total HRR "pot" is 20%

so the players are being asked to take 11% less of a pot thats been reduced 20% as it is :dizzy:

 

[dash]

so the players are being asked to take 11% less of a pot thats been reduced 20% as it is :dizzy:

Meanwhile, I see nothing in the league's initial proposal that addresses one of the biggest issues in the league today (i.e. helping out smaller market teams with increased revenue sharing). Maybe the league's goal is to go from a 30 team league to a 24 team league

 

[mattola]

i wonder if Tim Thomas decided to take this year off to stalk up on judgement day supplies (crosses, water, bibles, fat skank monthly, guns, ammo, and preparation H) because he knew that the upcoming season is going to be 3/4 to 1/2 a season.

 

[mattola]

Meanwhile, I see nothing in the league's initial proposal that addresses one of the biggest issues in the league today (i.e. helping out smaller market teams with increased revenue sharing). Maybe the league's goal is to go from a 30 team league to a 24 team league

I honestly am SICK of helping out the smaller market teams with rev sharing. I dont want the canucks to help pay Nashville to help retain Weber, nor help Phoneix to pay their players. if the small market teams can't float sink the fuckers. spread out the talent and then we will have TRUE parity.

 

[jstewismybastardson]

Meanwhile, I see nothing in the league's initial proposal that addresses one of the biggest issues in the league today (i.e. helping out smaller market teams with increased revenue sharing). Maybe the league's goal is to go from a 30 team league to a 24 team league

I honestly am SICK of helping out the smaller market teams with rev sharing. I dont want the canucks to help pay Nashville to help retain Weber, nor help Phoneix to pay their players. if the small market teams can't float sink the fuckers. spread out the talent and then we will have TRUE parity.

which is why you have the pull back from the bigger clubs not wanting to include their local broadcasting deals in total HRR

reducing HRR is the big team owners solution to reducing the revenue sharing dollars they have to contribute ... by reducing HRR the players cut is way way less and therefore the cap floor will be way way less ... smaller clubs wont lose "as much"