I can't post it from my phone but there is a YouTube video from the NHLPA that was released today. Prepare to fucking vomit. Nothing like Crosby lecturing fans on how players don't make enough.
TBH, the owner's proposal has some serious flaws, outside of the revenue split. Longer entry contracts, later free agency, shorter contract terms, mandating all years at same $$, lack of revenue sharing (play on a shitty team? they're always going to be shitty. I'm looking at you, Rick Nash). I think the smarter move from the teams is to get rid of averaging over the term for cap purposes. You wanna make 13 mil this year, find someone who can fit that in. Not the 7 that it averages out to, since you're making 40 grand a year when you're 43 years old and still under contract. While I agree that the owners got themselves into this, I think the players have more leverage going after the long-term picture; revenue sharing, parity, how you define 'hockey revenues'. And I'd never agree to a year 0 clawback. They just signed those contracts. But the overall split? So long as there's a chance to make the small market teams competitive, the union - looking after all its membership - should be more focused on the long term. My $.02
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VTaVul5H2Zo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Was Cindy crying about the difficulty of affording a superstar lifestyle? It can't be cheap partying and golfing four months a year and then playing the world's greatest sport for the next 8 months.
Here is the Crosby and co. video. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RCW0VsfR9FM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<div><iframe frameborder="0" width="576" height="324" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/yahoo%20sports/site/player.html#vid=30668567&browseCarouselUI=hide"></iframe></div>
I would love to see contraction but neither side will go for it. The owners run the league but I think they're their own worst enemies. Wealthy clubs have enough clout to prevent revenue sharing. On the other side, weaker clubs have enough pull to prevent contraction. NHLPA won't allow contraction because that means members losing their jobs. Union is supposed to protect jobs (yeah, yeah; short sighted). Relocation is probably NOT the answer. Although I'm sure another Toronto area team would be viable, the annual payment the Leafs would get make that unlikely (not sure why that's such a deterrent if it wasn't in New York). Also, fan base is only half the equation (and much less in many areas). The league sees strong corporate support as a key to a stable franchise (luxury box owners for instance). That is why, ith nothing but OSU football to compete with, Columbus was so attractive; lots of corporate dollars and no place to spend them. Seattle might make sense with the loss of the 'sonics but the NHL is concerned about them getting another NBA franchise. You're also competing with the 'hawks and Pilots, I mean Mariners. Baltimore might be able to support a club but they'd have to make payments to the Caps for territorial infringement and given the presence of the Colts, birds, 'skins, Nats, Caps and Wizards it's likely the NHL wouldn't consider it. Quebec would probably get the most support from the league. With the players, it's easy to vilify somebody like Crosby for wanting more money but the majority of the union members aren't making that kind of money. While their salaries sound great, most of these guys are lucky if they can play in the league for 8 years. Even if they manage their money, after they retire from hockey, most of these guys will end up spending 20 to 30 years as working stiffs just like the rest of us. Here's my cure for the league. Four team contraction, four on four the whole game, no touch icing, no hand pass period, no auto DoG in the defensive zone (refs call) and move the blue lines back to where they use to be.
NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said Monday the League's owners are committed to starting the 2012-13 regular season on time and he is hopeful negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement will resume this week. http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=642140
From what I understand, the owners won't negotiate unless the NHLPA submits a new counter proposal. NHLPA refuses to give up any more then they already have. I reserve the right to be wrong.
So what you are saying is: The owners want the season to start on time and get their way. The players just want to get their way regardless of a season. I can identify a problem with this scenario.
Yes and no. I would argue that the players have given more then the owners at this current point in negotiations. I will say that the Captials have to be shitting their pants right about now considering that OV said he would not return to the NHL if his salary is cut. The truth is the players made deals and signed contracts in good faith. The owners are trying to get out of those contracts by passing rules that will override the contracts. I see issues on both sides still. The problem remains that no matter what 3rd and 4th line guys are getting fucked in the end. They can't score decent contracts in the other leagues and they aren't making their 1-2 million contracts in a sport where you retire at 35. Those same players are losing the most if the cap or contracts get altered. OV or Crosby going from 9 mil-7.5 isn't bad. Where third line guys going from 1.5 to 1mil lose more.
There it is in a nutshell. The owners act like it's monopoly money wheeling and dealing for the best Stanley Cup squad that they can buy. After a couple of years of overspending they sober up and all of the sudden want a reset and start over on the CBA they agreed to because they plunged the sport into ruinous financial predicament. The players demanded and got revenue percentages that no other buisiness in the universe could concievably sustain for more than a few years without wrecking team's finances and making the CBA untenable. Plenty of stupid and greed on both sides. Rich folks can never be rich enough.
Yes, then you have the teams that wanted to screw other small market teams over by offering insane signing bonuses to certain franchise players. Since these franchise players knew their contracts would get altered as a result of the new CBA agreement, they chose the team that offered the highest signing bonuses.... Cough cough, Minnesota, cough, cough.
Only if they dump several teams. Small market teams need this to get done, because if the players aren't willing to eat the cost, someone will have to be on the chopping block, and Darwinism will be in full force.
The salary cap, in its current form, is essentially a mockery of accrual accounting. Ignoring the % revenue calculations for a moment, the change from long-term, bonus-heavy, cap-averaged contracts to 5-year, no-bonus, cost-per-year averaged contracts is HUGE. The ownership group is basically saying 'we can't figure out how to manage our cash payrolls'. Playing around with capgeek.com makes this all the more obvious. As mentioned before, the Parise/Suter deal at 12/12/12/9/9/9/6... has a cap hit of 7.5 per year. 4.5mil spread from cash to cap for each player, 9 total. They gained five of that back on contracts that are paying less than their cap hit but still have cash payroll 4mil higher than the cap. They can afford it. Nashville? Not so much. Which is exactly why the players are angling for comprehensive revenue sharing. The cap doesn't mean anything if some teams can overspend and others can barely make the floor. As a player, you want to get paid cash up front as much as possible.