The NHL has moved on every proposal they have offered the NHLPA. If the players don't accept this new one. There will be no hockey this year and it will be the players fault in my eyes. Not sure why a player is telling TSN that the players will have a problem with the salary cap being at 60 million this year. That shouldn't even be a concern of the players that is the owners concern. - Leafsfan9329
Up until now i blamed both sides equally, However the NHL has moved and moved with there propsals and the players haven't done crap but make changes to the NHL proposal. Now in my eyes it looks like the NHL is trying and the NHLPA is trying to suck the league dry before accepting a deal.
Its time to accept and get hockey back on the Ice. This will be the last year i will be able to watch hockey for the next 3 years as I'll be deployed overseas.
There are some things in the NHL's new offer that I view as a concession to the players. In terms of money, it was always going to be the players giving a concession to the Owners on that. It was just a question of how much. - MJL
Exactly. So to say "what are the owners conceeding?!" is a bit of a dumb statement. They cannot conceed in any total $ amount thing off the original CBA. Otherwise, they wouldn't be locking them out. Originally, they locked them out for a 50/50 split. And this is why the players are dumb in female doging about the 43% offer. That was a CLEAR message of "We want 50/50." People always offer like this. anyone whose played monopoly, fantasy football, NHL13, or any trading game knows. You aim high, expect a counter offer, and know your meeting somewhere in the middle.
In terms of the last CBA, is makewhole a concession? No. In terms of the eb and flow of negotiations and going back and forth, is it a concession? Yes it is. So is 5 years to 6. Are these "new" concessions worthy for the PA to make a deal or can the NHL go further and there for these aren't true concessions? Thats up to you to decide.
Lowering the cap does lower the floor. The floor is the cap less $16M I think.
And you have to be pretty careful about lowering the floor too far without the cap dropping too. the parity aspect of the league has done quite well, I'd say.
More realistically, the floor should have been done as a %, not a $ amount. That would have helped.
That's just one more thing the PA would object to though... a lower floor. - prock
The first statement is 100% accurate. It is worth noting that the NHL is the one who insisted on the floor being a flat $16M below the cap. It was the PA who insisted on the floor, but it was the NHL that insisted on the flat dollar difference
As for the second statement, noone knows b/c the NHL brass haven't even tried to change the floor calculation. In theory you are correct the PA would oppose a lower floor
I have a great anaology, its liek in monopoly buying the last Orange piece for $200 and your opponent needs it to complete a monoply and they say I'll give you $300 and you say I want $1000. If they say $400 and you say $800. Can they turn around and say "Wel you paid $200 previously, so going from $200 to $300 is already a concession" No it really isn't.
The fact it is a lockout is key. It means players are happy with the deal, that is their negotiating jumping point. The NHL wasn't happy and needs to negotiate them down to somethign else, they start off low to meet in the middle whilst both conceed to get there.
If this was a strike, it's flipped. Owners jumping point is the deal they have in place. Players want more and set a real high price. The two make concessions to meet in the middle until they have a deal.
If the last CBA was fair to both sides, there'd be no lockout.
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 28 @ 2:58 PM ET
I have a great anaology, its liek in monopoly buying the last Orange piece for $200 and your opponent needs it to complete a monoply and they say I'll give you $300 and you say I want $1000. If they say $400 and you say $800. Can they turn around and say "Wel you paid $200 previously, so going from $200 to $300 is already a concession" No it really isn't.
The fact it is a lockout is key. It means players are happy with the deal, that is their negotiating jumping point. The NHL wasn't happy and needs to negotiate them down to somethign else, they start off low to meet in the middle whilst both conceed to get there.
If this was a strike, it's flipped. Owners jumping point is the deal they have in place. Players want more and set a real high price. The two make concessions to meet in the middle until they have a deal.
If the last CBA was fair to both sides, there'd be no lockout. - mrhattrick27
You can't imagine the number times I have tried to explain "lockout" to some people here.
Location: Your a (frank)ing fag and I hope you get crippled- Cranny, MN Joined: 01.05.2009
Dec 28 @ 2:58 PM ET
I have a great anaology, its liek in monopoly buying the last Orange piece for $200 and your opponent needs it to complete a monoply and they say I'll give you $300 and you say I want $1000. If they say $400 and you say $800. Can they turn around and say "Wel you paid $200 previously, so going from $200 to $300 is already a concession" No it really isn't.
The fact it is a lockout is key. It means players are happy with the deal, that is their negotiating jumping point. The NHL wasn't happy and needs to negotiate them down to somethign else, they start off low to meet in the middle whilst both conceed to get there.
If this was a strike, it's flipped. Owners jumping point is the deal they have in place. Players want more and set a real high price. The two make concessions to meet in the middle until they have a deal.
If the last CBA was fair to both sides, there'd be no lockout. - mrhattrick27
Exactly. Collective bargaining is two sides that have separate needs. In order for both to start making money again, they need to concede some of their demands.
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 28 @ 2:59 PM ET
So it looks like much the same offer from a few weeks ago, except 6 year minimum and 10% variance from year 1. There may be some more minor tweaks I don't think anyone knows everything that was offered a few weeks ago.
Exactly. So to say "what are the owners conceeding?!" is a bit of a dumb statement. They cannot conceed in any total $ amount thing off the original CBA. Otherwise, they wouldn't be locking them out. Originally, they locked them out for a 50/50 split. And this is why the players are dumb in female doging about the 43% offer. That was a CLEAR message of "We want 50/50." People always offer like this. anyone whose played monopoly, fantasy football, NHL13, or any trading game knows. You aim high, expect a counter offer, and know your meeting somewhere in the middle.
In terms of the last CBA, is makewhole a concession? No. In terms of the eb and flow of negotiations and going back and forth, is it a concession? Yes it is. So is 5 years to 6. Are these "new" concessions worthy for the PA to make a deal or can the NHL go further and there for these aren't true concessions? Thats up to you to decide. - mrhattrick27
There's a difference between a concession and compromising on an issue to find middle ground between two positions. I think the NHL has done the latter here to their credit. I think it's a good offer, but we'll see how the NHLPA feels.
As a fan of the most wealthy team in the NHL I say (frank) the teams without any money and I'm really upset they can't afford the buyout of a poopty contract. Those non wealthy teams are the reason us fans of real teams had to wait till the new year to watch hockey....basically large middle finger tothose parasite clubs who should be removed from the league anyway.
I have a great anaology, its liek in monopoly buying the last Orange piece for $200 and your opponent needs it to complete a monoply and they say I'll give you $300 and you say I want $1000. If they say $400 and you say $800. Can they turn around and say "Wel you paid $200 previously, so going from $200 to $300 is already a concession" No it really isn't.
The fact it is a lockout is key. It means players are happy with the deal, that is their negotiating jumping point. The NHL wasn't happy and needs to negotiate them down to somethign else, they start off low to meet in the middle whilst both conceed to get there.
If this was a strike, it's flipped. Owners jumping point is the deal they have in place. Players want more and set a real high price. The two make concessions to meet in the middle until they have a deal.
If the last CBA was fair to both sides, there'd be no lockout. - mrhattrick27
What the situation was under the last CBA is the measuring point of what a concession is and to whom. Again, there is a big difference between compromising and making an actual concession.
As a fan of the most wealthy team in the NHL I say (frank) the teams without any money and I'm really upset they can't afford the buyout of a poopty contract. Those non wealthy teams are the reason us fans of real teams had to wait till the new year to watch hockey....basically large middle finger tothose parasite clubs who should be removed from the league anyway. - tmlfan17
I have two things to say:
1) We have no idea what is going on and
2) If I hear the players or ppl on the players side say one more time that they are negotiating off of the last CBA I'm going to lose it.
There's a difference between a concession and compromising on an issue to find middle ground between two positions. I think the NHL has done the latter here to their credit. I think it's a good offer, but we'll see how the NHLPA feels. - MJL
Anti-owner article explaining why in a lockout (like it or not) the union must make all concessions as the unions job is to get the workers back to work with as little damage done as possible.
Location: Not to point any fingers but Tyson Barrie has looked awful in the blue and white for the Leafs., QC Joined: 07.28.2006
Dec 28 @ 3:10 PM ET
I get that it wasn't perfect but the salary cap has helped the league greatly. - rmdevil313
competition wise? sure.
has it solved the league's economic issues? nope. so long as there is a cap floor as high as it is now, it will never solve the league's economic issues. there are teams in this league that have no business with payrolls north of $25 million.
Location: Bobby Ryan + 1st rounder for Clarkson, ON Joined: 08.30.2007
Dec 28 @ 3:11 PM ET
The first statement is 100% accurate. It is worth noting that the NHL is the one who insisted on the floor being a flat $16M below the cap. It was the PA who insisted on the floor, but it was the NHL that insisted on the flat dollar difference
As for the second statement, noone knows b/c the NHL brass haven't even tried to change the floor calculation. In theory you are correct the PA would oppose a lower floor - uf1910
I was referring to the PA being against a lower floor.
But yes, if it were done as a fixed % (floor = 75% of cap, or floor = 50% of revenue) or soemthing along those lines, instead of a fixed dollar amount (floor = cap - $16M), then yes, as revenues rise, the cap floor wouldn't have been as high as now. That is 100% correct, that is grade 9 math, and you can't argue that.
EDIT - I thought you said inaccurate - my mistake.
As far as the NHL insisting on it being a fixed dollar amount below the cap, I'd like to see a source on that.
As a fan of the most wealthy team in the NHL I say (frank) the teams without any money and I'm really upset they can't afford the buyout of a poopty contract. Those non wealthy teams are the reason us fans of real teams had to wait till the new year to watch hockey....basically large middle finger tothose parasite clubs who should be removed from the league anyway. - tmlfan17
Look on the bright side.......you'll only have to watch 3 months of losing hockey instead of 6 months
Location: Corner of Kirk Maclean's Toe and Robert Reichel's face. Joined: 01.09.2006
Dec 28 @ 3:12 PM ET
Can you hear it.... listen................
Thats the sound of Bill Daly. This is it... It was the hill he died on.
No one noticed that the NHL put 300 million back on the table which Bettman said was off and they moved off the hill they would die on on contract lengths??
Fehr is a rockstar.
No one giving any love to Fehr for doing EXACTLY what he needed to do?
Location: Bobby Ryan + 1st rounder for Clarkson, ON Joined: 08.30.2007
Dec 28 @ 3:13 PM ET
What the situation was under the last CBA is the measuring point of what a concession is and to whom. Again, there is a big difference between compromising and making an actual concession. - MJL
Anti-owner article explaining why in a lockout (like it or not) the union must make all concessions as the unions job is to get the workers back to work with as little damage done as possible. - mrhattrick27
Aren't the players getting a better pension plan because of the owners?
Location: Has anyone discussed the standings today? Joined: 06.30.2006
Dec 28 @ 3:17 PM ET
Can you hear it.... listen................
Thats the sound of Bill Daly. This is it... It was the hill he died on.
No one noticed that the NHL put 300 million back on the table which Bettman said was off and they moved off the hill they would die on on contract lengths??
Fehr is a rockstar.
No one giving any love to Fehr for doing EXACTLY what he needed to do? - Beatle_john
Uh, yeah, it will cost another month's salary for the PA to get an extra year added on to contracts affecting 10% of the PA.
Thats the sound of Bill Daly. This is it... It was the hill he died on.
No one noticed that the NHL put 300 million back on the table which Bettman said was off and they moved off the hill they would die on on contract lengths??
Fehr is a rockstar.
No one giving any love to Fehr for doing EXACTLY what he needed to do? - Beatle_john
