DON Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Great to see a somewhat fair (seemingly) deal tabled. From the press bites from some of players lately, i think there will be quite a bit of support to just accept and get the season going, especially the majority, who are of the "lower" salaried players, who would make $1.8/year instead of $2.0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazy26 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Brian's outlined the sticking points, but this offer is certainly more fair than anything I expected at this point. It's hard not to get my hopes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCPetit Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Obviously, the NHL's objective all along was to get as close to a 50-50 deal as possible. They are laying their cards on the table, at last. We will see how it unfolds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 NIIICE !!! As noted, I trully believe that the NHL are offering something that is very close to what would be their final offer. The NHLPA should do the same now or the fan's support will really go on owners side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 And now there are rumblings that ELC's are dropping to 2 years. From 4, to 3, to 2 in a matter of hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Just read about another tidbit, one that would more or less eliminate burying contracts in the minors. The new deal proposes that all NHL salaries (I interpret that as 1-way deals) count regardless of whether they're in the NHL or the minors. That MUST come with a 1 one time only buyout (with no cap hit) period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 That MUST come with a 1 one time only buyout (with no cap hit) period. One of the rumblings that have come out in recent hours is that the cap would operate at the $70.2 M it was set at before the lockout for this season only. With that in there, that may not mean that one is required as in theory, that would give teams a full year to wiggle their way down to the new number. Or, there could be a bargain buyout of sorts, such as where the player receives his standard 2/3 but only 50% counts against the cap. That way it's enough to entice some teams to go that route while still providing some sort of penalty which is what I'm sure teams that aren't at the cap are hoping for. Other tidbits that have come out: - Arbitration would move from after 4 years to 5 years - Top 10 earning teams would contribute up to 50% of the revenue sharing pool (so $10 M per team) - League is willing to go to third party arbitration for appeals on suspensions (currently Bettman is who overseas appeals) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 The offer sounds good but lets wait to hear the full details. It may take a day or two for the NHLPA to find what is buried in the fine print. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Just read about another tidbit, one that would more or less eliminate burying contracts in the minors. The new deal proposes that all NHL salaries (I interpret that as 1-way deals) count regardless of whether they're in the NHL or the minors. there is talk that there is a soft cap involved that will allow teams to trade salary. This is where the PA should take the deal. It changes everything. Even with shorter contracts, it means all of that money not being spent by Phoenix, Columbus and Florida can start getting spent and by big market teams (i.e. teams players want to play for). It may just be cash is tradeable, not cap space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 A look at the NHL's latest offer, areas that could be problematic, and what we should hope to see between now and October 25th. http://lastwordonsports.com/2012/10/17/latest-nhl-offer-deal-maker-or-mirage/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Just read about another tidbit, one that would more or less eliminate burying contracts in the minors. The new deal proposes that all NHL salaries (I interpret that as 1-way deals) count regardless of whether they're in the NHL or the minors. Brian did you read anywhere that they wanted to bring the American league salaries under the cap. Fact or fiction? Seems problematic to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 What is likelyhood the "fair" offer is more just a PR move on owners part and as soon as the players dont accept or ask for changes, the deal is gone and Owners simply say "well we tried" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Brian did you read anywhere that they wanted to bring the American league salaries under the cap. Fact or fiction? Seems problematic to me. Fact Any AHL salary over 105,000 would count Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Fact Any AHL salary over 105,000 would count Or whatever the new threshold for re-entry waivers would become by the time this gets settled...if there are re-entry waivers as the league has proposed that would get scrapped. Also, if anyone's interested in what all was in the proposal, the NHL released it today: http://www.nhl.com/i...s.htm?id=643572 This comes after Fehr released a letter which more or less implied that the PA isn't impressed by the offer: http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Fact Any AHL salary over 105,000 would count Commandant, I have read your article. How much does this add to the cap this year? Secondly I surmise that the disclaimer "these are here for accounting purposes" that we are not adding new faces to the bargaining unit (with full voting privileges)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Commandant, I have read your article. How much does this add to the cap this year? Secondly I surmise that the disclaimer "these are here for accounting purposes" that we are not adding new faces to the bargaining unit (with full voting privileges)? I'm not sure for the Habs. All I saw from Cap Geek's twitter was the top 5 teams. Number 1 was Boston at almost 800,000 in additional cap hits. The big thing is the inability to remove a Scott Gomez or Wade Redden from the cap by sending him to the minors. The other big thing about accounting purposes and not being added to the players share is that if these guys were reducing the 50% share the players get, then the players would probably start asking for some inclusion of AHL revenues in HRR so the total dollars available to them don't drop. But they NHL avoided that request by not having them count against player's share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm not sure for the Habs. All I saw from Cap Geek's twitter was the top 5 teams. Number 1 was Boston at almost 800,000 in additional cap hits. The big thing is the inability to remove a Scott Gomez or Wade Redden from the cap by sending him to the minors. The other big thing about accounting purposes and not being added to the players share is that if these guys were reducing the 50% share the players get, then the players would probably start asking for some inclusion of AHL revenues in HRR so the total dollars available to them don't drop. But they NHL avoided that request by not having them count against player's share. Yeah, you can see a box opening on the SS Pandora Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 According to former Hab Mathieu Dandenault, the PA will offer up 4 50/50 proposals to the league today. Obviously there would be some distinct differences (especially since it's a gradual slide starting at 54/46) in each one but that's an interesting development. http://blogs.thescor...to-choose-from/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 I'm not sure for the Habs. All I saw from Cap Geek's twitter was the top 5 teams. Number 1 was Boston at almost 800,000 in additional cap hits. The big thing is the inability to remove a Scott Gomez or Wade Redden from the cap by sending him to the minors. The other big thing about accounting purposes and not being added to the players share is that if these guys were reducing the 50% share the players get, then the players would probably start asking for some inclusion of AHL revenues in HRR so the total dollars available to them don't drop. But they NHL avoided that request by not having them count against player's share. I also am against burying contracts, should keep dumb GMs (Gainey/Sather/etc) accountable for major errs, And you would think make them think twice, but they cant help themselves when the owner likely says "Go ahead and Sign Em!" and will always be goofy contracts signed no matter what they put in CBA. I know all want Gomer's gone, as do I, but should have to live with trade/signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlbalr Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 A good comparison of the offers that have already been outright rejected by the league: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/analysis-why-the-nhl-players-50-50-compromise-may-not-matter/article4622895/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 A good comparison of the offers that have already been outright rejected by the league: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/analysis-why-the-nhl-players-50-50-compromise-may-not-matter/article4622895/ 485 million dollar difference over 6 years 80 million per year 2.85 % of current HRR (less in future years) with things eventually reaching 50/50 and staying there long term. They are posturing to squeeze each other for every last million. A deal will get done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueKross Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 I wonder how the availability of four to five viable franchise sites figures into the negiations. I have a suspicion that this is part of the end game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronthab Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 485 million dollar difference over 6 years 80 million per year 2.85 % of current HRR (less in future years) with things eventually reaching 50/50 and staying there long term. They are posturing to squeeze each other for every last million. A deal will get done. Good to hear... I'm going through withdrawal coupled with instant paralysis when Markov got injured. I thawed thanks to a posting here. Knees aren't anywhere near ribs usually, are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trizzak Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Good to hear... I'm going through withdrawal coupled with instant paralysis when Markov got injured. I thawed thanks to a posting here. Knees aren't anywhere near ribs usually, are they? Well it depends on the severity of the injury... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EHIW_HWL Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Well it depends on the severity of the injury... Haha, though Markov is DtD with bruised ribs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.