On the League Offer

[Howie58]

Greetings:

It's hard for me to figure if this is capitulation or the 50-50 split is what they had in mind all along. One way or the other, this may be an apparent victory for the NHLPA....but I wonder about other things. For example, will there be more restrictions on length of contract, older player "security," etc?

This is also a strange sort of test in regard to the season length. It will run teams a bit ragged but effectively cuts a month of pre-season and other stuff for an extension of a few weeks. The Timmonens of the league may be really, really stretch if this is what comes down.

One way or the other, this puts the ball in the union's court. Realistically, the League won't go lower on the split. Now the war would seem to be over the operational concerns. I would also say that an implicit message is that neither the owners nor players may care as much about the weaker teams. A split toward the league implies more bailout for the weaklings. This split tells me otherwise.

Peace,

Howie

[JackStraw]

I could see the NHLPA accepting this, or something very close. I think that trying to squeeze in the entire 82 game schedule would be a mistake though. The schedule is already enough of a grind, compressing it like this would lead to a lot more injuries, imo.

[Digityman]

I haven't really taken sides on the bailout contract negotiations as I'm sure both sides have their bullet-proof reasoning. 50/50 is as fair as numbers get but as you said @Howie58 the other stuff is what matters now as I think the union does accept the 50/50 offer.

Being a fan of a shorter regular season anyway, cramming 82 games in will be interesting for me to watch. Will there be more injuries? More players having a shot at playing in the NHL due to tired/hurt NHLers? I do agree that the Timo's of the NHL are going to be more bruised and battered than what they typically are at the start of the POs.

[Irishjim]

there talking about adding 1 extra game every five weeks. when you think about it its not hat bad. looking at the flyers schedule, 6 times they have 4 days off between games.

[TedZep]

So the owners, the guys with the money, are willing to share half of it with the players. The players, who without the NHL, have to accept riskier contracts in Europe or sell cars, and won't budge. Dammit.

[MaineFlyFan]

Ya know.....As much as I hate to say it I kinda agree with Ted Zep.....Without the NHL (or the flyers ever having entered the picture), Ed Snider would still be disgustingly rich......

Without the NHL, Hartnell would be lucky to land a job as a car salesman....... and I'm pretty sure Briere would be a dance instructor (sorry...just being a smart ass)

The players need the NHL to be rich and play hockey out side of Siberia.....The owners do NOT NEED the NHL.....it's prob a novelty to most of them....."whats a couple of hundred million??? Lets buy a hockey team!!!"

At any rate, I hope they figure something out cuz I love the game and the skill and player at the NHL level is unmatched anywhere on the planet......FAR UNMATCHED as is apparent from what Giroux and Briere are doing in the German league......

Edited October 18, 2012 by MaineFlyFan

[Howie58]

Greetings:

This is something of a take-out move on the part of the owners. 50/50 is "fair" to the outside looking in. But I suspect we are going to see changes on contract length, entry-level length, etc., that will tilt to the owners. And if the union really wants to "help" the nontraditional or small markets, those things may be as important, or maybe even more important, than the revenue split. The offer sheet war between Philly and Nashville over Weber tells highlights that kind of difference between the fiscal haves and have-nots.

My gut says this offer will result in a deal within 10 days.

Best,

Howie

[jammer2]

@Howie58 Totally off topic, but had to ask, have always wondered....your posting style has always been very polite and friendly, does your real life personality mimic your posting style?....if so, you must one of the most polite humans alive! lol, and there is nothing wrong with that!

[Howie58]

Dear Jammer2:

Thank you for your kind words. I try to be civil. That is important in my book.

One of the things that got me sick with the old board at Philly.com was the incessant bickering, name calling, and "other." I view this as a kind of cyber-family and hope we can keep it polite.

FYI, there are times I lose it and use the f-bomb...but that is generally for emphasis rather than hurt!

Howie

[jammer2]

@Howie58 yeah, philly.com was out of control at times, can't say much I was knee deep in it...this place is a God send, no personal attacks, just plain ol civil hockey talk and a knowledgeable group of individuals who truly love the sport....totally refreshing when you read some of the other crap out there on other sites.

[brelic]

Here are some details from the NHL's latest offer, as per CBC:

Some of the other highlights of the offer include:

• An official salary cap of $59.9 million for the 2012-13 season, with the provision that teams can actually spend up to $70.2 million for one year to ease the transition.
  
• A new rule that would allow teams to retain a portion of a player's salary in trades.
  
• The reduction of entry-level contracts to two years.
  
• A five-year term limit on every other contract and a stipulation that the average annual value can only vary up to five per cent from the first season. This is a mechanism designed to eliminate the long-term, back-diving deals that became popular during the previous CBA.
  
• The elimination of re-entry waivers.
  
• An annual revenue-sharing pool of $200 million, half of which is raised from the 10 richest teams, and the creation of a committee to determine how the money is distributed. The NHLPA would be given representation on the committee.
  
• The introduction of a "neutral" third-party arbitrator to handle appeals on supplemental discipline with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
  

I really like the 5-year term limit and eliminating the re-entry waivers. I think players will like the shorter entry contracts, which the league had originally wanted to extend to 5 years, plus making UFA eligibility later.

But, based on Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like they're impressed with this deal.

[Bertmega]

The one thing that really sticks out to me regarding the leagues proposal is the part where if a player is traded then retires, the original team that granted the contract is on the hook for the remainder of the contract. This to me is what I would call the Ed Snider clause. Think about it, all the bad contracts that the Flyers signed over the years that did not pan out. To think that the Flyers could push dead contracts back on the original grantor is genius. I can't see where the union would argue the validity of that point as it protects owners from themselves. The players still get paid and the owners eat the bad contract. This could help teams get from under a Bryzgalov type contract.

The revenue sharing seems fair to me. A lot of the bullet points seem to be the owners protecting themselves from their own undoing.

I hope to see a deal hammered out soon.

[brelic]

One interesting thing about this offer is that, based on reader comments on TSN and CBC, the players are now the 'greedy' ones. The tide has turned, and the NHL made a very smart move by 'conceding' to a 50/50 split which many fans believe is 'fair,' while including several important concession-demands in the offer.

[Puck]

I really like the 5-year term limit and eliminating the re-entry waivers. I think players will like the shorter entry contracts, which the league had originally wanted to extend to 5 years, plus making UFA eligibility later.

But, based on Fehr's comments, it doesn't seem like they're impressed with this deal.

The shorter entry contracts is the owners way of trying to control player costs. As we saw with the Eberle and Hall contracts, amongst others, good young players are cashing in with that second contract. By reducing entry level contracts to 2 years, the owners are hoping to push escalating player costs back to the third contract instead of the second. It won't necessarily work as Hall managed to cash in with a year remaining on his entry level deal, but I think the intent is to attempt to control costs while allowing teams 3 contracts before a player hits UFA status.

The thing is, the PA gained a lot of contractual rights in the last CBA by agreeing to the 24% rollback and salary cap. With this latest proposal, it still seems like the players are the ones giving up everything: their split goes down 7%, they go from no term limits to 5 years, UFA age goes up, etc. What do the players gain here? Nothing, from what I've seen - except the 82 game schedule for 2012-13 which is really a win-win for both sides, not just the PA.

[Howie58]

Greetings:

I agree with prior posts-much is geared to protecting the owners from their excess. And I think this is a hand grenade lobbed back at the NHLPA--the fairness issue now seems to be in the owners' court.

Writ large, this seems to be saying that now more than ever, "management matters." Teaching in a management program, we often ask ourselves if that is case, or if so, what are the other factors--random events, history, and so on? Not being able to dump bad contracts, avoidance of front-loading, and shortening the entry-level seem to telescope player involvement with a team and require more owners and managers to be increasingly "responsible" over a 3-4 year cycle. I like it, though our Homer may have to readjust his thinking.

I wonder if this committee overseeing the revenue distribution will have veto authority over trades, team move, etc? That would add teeth to the new restrictions. It would also be a test of the NHLPA's assertion that it wants to fix the business model with the small/nontraditional markets. Would they continue to allow Toronto/Buffalo to veto a Hamilton team? Would they keep a team in Phoenix if it continues to bleed?

Stay tuned?

Best,

Howie

[radoran]

Ya know.....As much as I hate to say it I kinda agree with Ted Zep.....Without the NHL (or the flyers ever having entered the picture), Ed Snider would still be disgustingly rich......

Snider was the son of a grocery store magnate, who parlayed his money into an ownership stake (7%) of the Philadelphia Eagles.

He took that share and invested virtually everything into the Flyers and building the Spectrum, upon which his entire empire is built.

Ed Snider would certainly be "well off" without the Flyers entering the picture, but I don't think he would be anywhere near the "disgustingly rich" that he is today without them. Spectacor, PRISM, WIP, the entire empire is built upon the Flyers.

[Bertmega]

@Howie58 you bring up a great point with Holmgren having to tweak his GM strategy should the new rules go into place. With that said, do you think that they will need to find a new GM that is up to speed on how the new rules would effect roster development?

Clarke seemed to have a very hard time adjusting to the 05' CBA, could this be the same with Holmgren? As in he cannot front load contracts, extend contracts over multiple years, etc?

This is going to be a new era for the star power if you ask me.

[Howie58]

Good Morning:

I suspect that like a coat of paint, big time revenue covers a multitude of sins. So it may be that the GMs of the top-10 teams will have to change their game. But I think Homer is a more adaptable guy than Clarke. And Comcast/Lukko will be a constructive player.

We shall see....

Howie

[radoran]

@Howie58 you bring up a great point with Holmgren having to tweak his GM strategy should the new rules go into place. With that said, do you think that they will need to find a new GM that is up to speed on how the new rules would effect roster development?

Clarke seemed to have a very hard time adjusting to the 05' CBA, could this be the same with Holmgren? As in he cannot front load contracts, extend contracts over multiple years, etc?

This is going to be a new era for the star power if you ask me.

I don't think Homer is a one trick pony - he uses the rules which are presented to him.

I hope that we find a league in which picking and developing talent is more important than buying it.

[King Knut]

This proposal is a disaster for the Flyers organization.

For instance: Say Mike Richards or Jeff Carter get hurt and retire due to concussions or something before their contracts are up, we have to pay for them AND it counts against the cap, even though the Kings traded for both with the intention of taking responsibility for their contracts.

THAT IS INSANE. You can't change the rules retroactively like that. It's not even legal let alone fair.

Also the cap goes down significantly and there is quite possibly no more LTIR for someone like Pronger who is hurt but over 35 so we'll have to pay for him as though he's playing too. Sound fair?

Or how about this? Minor leaguers who make too much money also count against the cap. MINOR LEAGUERS. So with a player like Schenn last year who clearly wasn't a minor leaguer but just wasn't ready to play in the pros for a month or so... He counts against the cap (admitedly though I don't know if it's his minor league salary or his NHL salary that counts). It also applies to older players (like Leighton) who clearly aren't good enough to be on NHL teams except in cases of absolute emergency... Does that sound fair? Leighton wasn't a phantom because we didn't want to pay for him, he was a phantom because he wasn't good enough to be a Flyer.

oH and by the way, you and I with our tickets will be paying for even more of the Predators contract that kept Shea Weber from playing here now. Does that seem fair?

This whole thing is absolutel garbage and I'm sick of it. I friggin' HATE the NHL and I friggin' HATE gary bettman. He is pond scum for making me pay another team to sign the players I want to see in Black and Orange. I'm not the one who told him to allow even more franchises.

The owners are turning larger and larger profits yet he has run this league into the ground.

[King Knut]

But I think Homer is a more adaptable guy than Clarke.

I agree, Homer more or less invented the stuff to get around the old CBA rules. They didn't pick Homer because he had some secret grasp of the mysterious new rules. It was a new climate where you needed more of a business minded guy instead of just a hockey minded guy. He'll do his best now too. That said, it's unfair to apply all the NEW rules to the OLD contracts. There should be a way to buy out of guys like Pronger or Weber or Kovalchuck for these teams. I don't know why Snider isn't more adamant about that. It's going to cripple this team next year unless they allow a back door escape of buying out Ilya or Pronger.

It's ridiculously prejudicial not to do that. It's not Homer's fault he was able to outsmart the system last time. Punishing the players and the fans now as a result is ridiculous.

The New CBA pretty much takes Comcast and Snider completely out of the equation.

It completely removes any risk or responsibility for the owners. IT's a business like any other and you can't remove the risk.

Edited October 18, 2012 by King Knut

[radoran]

This proposal is a disaster for the Flyers organization.

For instance: Say Mike Richards or Jeff Carter get hurt and retire due to concussions or something before their contracts are up, we have to pay for them AND it counts against the cap, even though the Kings traded for both with the intention of taking responsibility for their contracts.

THAT IS INSANE. You can't change the rules retroactively like that. It's not even legal let alone fair.

Also the cap goes down significantly and there is quite possibly no more LTIR for someone like Pronger who is hurt but over 35 so we'll have to pay for him as though he's playing too. Sound fair?

I would imagine that there will be a "grandfather" clause on existing contracts.

Or how about this? Minor leaguers who make too much money also count against the cap. MINOR LEAGUERS. So with a player like Schenn last year who clearly wasn't a minor leaguer but just wasn't ready to play in the pros for a month or so... He counts against the cap (admitedly though I don't know if it's his minor league salary or his NHL salary that counts). It also applies to older players (like Leighton) who clearly aren't good enough to be on NHL teams except in cases of absolute emergency... Does that sound fair? Leighton wasn't a phantom because we didn't want to pay for him, he was a phantom because he wasn't good enough to be a Flyer.

Leighton is the Flyers' backup goalie when the season starts.

Schenn was kept in the AHL because of his contract which had a potential bonus based on games played which would have impacted the Flyers' in-season cap.

oH and by the way, you and I with our tickets will be paying for even more of the Predators contract that kept Shea Weber from playing here now. Does that seem fair?

A bit of a stretch - and no different than the rules when the Flyers made the offer in the first place, opening themselves up to taht eventuality.

This whole thing is absolutel garbage and I'm sick of it. I friggin' HATE the NHL and I friggin' HATE gary bettman. He is pond scum for making me pay another team to sign the players I want to see in Black and Orange. I'm not the one who told him to allow even more franchises.

The owners are turning larger and larger profits yet he has run this league into the ground.

The owners are whiny, put-upon billionaires pretending that they're being fiscally responsible by insisting that the players agree to not allow them to give them the contracts and terms that they otherwise would simply have to offer them.

A rational, reasonable way to get to a 50/50 split in revenue over the course of a number of seasons is clearly the way to go, but the owners are hell-bent on some objectivist ideology (Snider is a major proponent of The Atlas Society, for example) and who, by their executives' own admission, view the players as cattle who are replaceable and, by their owners own actions, fans as fools and dupes who are there to be milked.

Gary Bettman has overseen an unprecedented explosion in revenues for the owners. The owners happily lined up and took Disney's money to put another team in Southern California that no one cares about despite winning a Cup. The owners clearly support Bettman's league office running the Phoenix franchise.

Gary Bettman is a symptom. The owners are the ones who are sick.

[King Knut]

A rational, reasonable way to get to a 50/50 split in revenue over the course of a number of seasons is clearly the way to go, but the owners are hell-bent on some objectivist ideology (Snider is a major proponent of The Atlas Society, for example) and who, by their executives' own admission, view the players as cattle who are replaceable and, by their owners own actions, fans as fools and dupes who are there to be milked.

Which is Ironic because what they're doing is completely antithetical to the ideals of John Galt's in Atlas Shrugged... but that's typical of the Rich I guess, to just take what they want from something an use it to justify your actions.

The revenue sharing is enhanced now BTW, We'll be on the hook for more. That's all I meant by that. It frustrates me.

[radoran]

Which is Ironic because what they're doing is completely antithetical to the ideals of John Galt's in Atlas Shrugged... but that's typical of the Rich I guess, to just take what they want from something an use it to justify your actions.

The revenue sharing is enhanced now BTW, We'll be on the hook for more. That's all I meant by that. It frustrates me.

The NFL is (arguably) the most successful league on the planet (certainly in the country) and one of the foundations of that success is revenue sharing.

These are not 30 individual companies "competing" with each other.

They are 30 franchises within a league who are supposed to work for the betterment and advancement of the league and sport as a whole.

[King Knut]

They are 30 franchises within a league who are supposed to work for the betterment and advancement of the league and sport as a whole.

Sure, but there HAS to be a way to allow for failing teams to fail without dragging down the rest of the league too much. The league has done too much coddling to teams that have no business being in existence and that will very obviously never be competitive in the market on the whole.

The fans deserve as superior a product as possible and by forcing teams to be more mediocre, you are denying a loyal, dedicated multitude of fans in many cities that superior product. What's worse is you're ultimately asking them to foot the bill for diluting things in the first place.

Hockey isn't as popular as football. Football is ubiquitous. Hockey isn't. It's NEVER going to generate that kind of money. No one is ever going to spend millions of dollars to premiere ads during the Cup Finals.

Hockey is just plain too big for it's shorts right now. It has to be toned back a little. I assert that right now those 30 teams are working for the betterment and advancement of their league, but not the sport as a whole and not for the sake of their fans.