NHL cancels regular-season schedule through Nov. 1; clock ticking to save Winter Classic

19 Oct
2012

After two days of meetings between the NHL and NHLPA, the two sides have yet to agree to meatier parts of a new CBA and thus the league has gone forward with postponing another chunk of the 2012-13 schedule. As of Friday all games through Nov. 1 have been canceled.

From the NHL:

The National Hockey League announced today the cancellation of the 2012-13 regular-season schedule through November 1. A total of 135 regular-season games were scheduled for Oct. 11 through Nov. 1.

The cancellation was necessary because of the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NHL Players' Association and the NHL.

That's an additional 53 games on top of the 82 that were canceled back on Oct. 4.

Remember: Commissioner Gary Bettman said on Monday that if the NHL's proposal is accepted within 10 days, they could fit in the 82-game schedule which would begin on Nov. 2. Of course, after listening to Donald Fehr on Thursday, a Nov. 2 start isn't in the cards, but there's still the potential for a 70ish-game season beginning sometime in November if the posturing and PR battles stop and serious negotiating begins on both sides. The question now is how big is the chunk of games that will go once Bettman's 10-day deadline passes without any progress?

And as the cancellation of games keeps moving forward, we get closer and closer to the Winter Classic getting axed from the NHL's schedule. MLive.com's Ansar Khan reported that Nov. 20 is the drop-dead date to save the game and give the league enough time to prepare both Michigan Stadium and Comerica Park for the events surrounding the Winter Classic.

Follow Sean Leahy on Twitter at @Sean_Leahy

Fantasy football advice on Yahoo! Sports:

Other popular content on the Yahoo! network:
• Watch: Who are NFL's Week 7 locks to win?
• Barry Zito enjoyed Giant resurrection in Game 5 of the NLCS
• LeBron James dismisses talk of Lakers' potential 2014 interest
• Y! Finance: Help wanted: Vampires, reindeer trainers

Tags: , , chunk, clock, , Donald Fehr, , , NHL Players' Association,
No Comments Share Read More

Why NHL’s bad faith negotiating damages CBA talk progress (Trending Topics)

19 Oct
2012

Trending Topics is a column that looks at the week in hockey, occasionally according to Twitter. If you're only going to comment to say how stupid Twitter is, why not just go have a good cry for the slow, sad death of your dear internet instead?

"[We're] going to get a deal done" - Gary Bettman to some dude, October 18, 2012, approximately 2:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

"We were done in an hour today because there was really nothing there." - Gary Bettman to reporters, October 18, 2012, 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Funny, that.

Why, it's almost like the NHL had no intention whatsoever of accepting whatever offer the NHL Players' Association put forward yesterday, and that everything it has done to this point has come as part of bad-faith negotiations disguised as platitudes about how much the fans matter and how important it is for them to get a deal done.

[Nick Cotsonika: Enough with the grudges and greed, get down to business and solve the CBA]

OK, maybe I shouldn't go that far. Getting a deal done is clearly on the League's to-do list, but getting one that in any way serves to protect even the slightest interest of the players (i.e. The Product) is something in which Bettman and the five or six guys driving this Cold War have no interest whatever. Period.

Let's put it this way: Both sides have likely always targeted a 50-50 endgame. How they eventually get there is the real issue, and some of the ancillary stuff — like what revenues they're going to be splitting right down the middle (but not really, wink-wink) and how players are able to actually earn money under that system — is very much up for debate.

So it should have come as no surprise to anyone on the entire planet that the League just happened that extend a 50-50 offer on Tuesday that was couched in a lot of the language uncovered by Deadspin's report on its B.S. focus groupery about 16 hours earlier.

Shared sacrifice, indeed.

Make no mistake, the League knows exactly why fans have been so quick to turn on it in this labor negotiation when they backed it near-uniformly in the last one: Its draconian power grab is as transparent as the Russian players' threat to stay in the KHL.

[Related: 'Not a good day' as NHL and NHLPA meet again, get nowhere]

That's why the Luntz Global questionnaire had all that stuff about "Which stuff about how greedy all the greedy owners are is the MOST true?" Because everyone saw through that first joke of a proposal this summer, and everyone saw through the petulant, teary-eyed foot-stomping about "The PA hasn't made an offer in weeks!!!"

To be totally clear here, the only thing Donald Fehr was brought in to do for the NHLPA was make sure the amputation wasn't as bad as the owners would have liked it to have been. Everyone involved, and even most who aren't, has always known that this deal, like the last CBA the players were bullied into signing, would end with the players losing money. Fehr's goal — and boy is it ever a crazy one — is to make sure the paycut they eventually take doesn't cost them anything that's already guaranteed in their current contracts. What a jerk. What a monster.

Yeah, 50-50 revenue splits in the NHL's deal sound super-fair, and so does increased revenue sharing (and, OK, so it's only like 80 percent of what the players wanted, but it's something). But when the owners are dictating what does and doesn't count as revenue that gets split, and oh by the way you guys have to pay for the "make-whole" issue yourselves because we're not getting involved in that … well, anyone with half a functioning brain can see that this in no way constitutes a good-faith offer.

Donald Fehr called it "borderline unfair" yesterday, and that sounds like a nice way of putting it.

[Also: The Vent: Fan cheers for Leafs to protest lockout; others plan a party]

Let's think about that 50-50 split critically, okay? The current split is 57-43 in favor of the players. We all know this. So the league is essentially asking for that 7 percent back — and in reality, it's a little more than 12 percent of what the players actually make — with what concessions going the other way. Did you guess, "Almost none?" Good job. No intention to honor contracts as currently written, no givebacks on free agency rights. Just suspension appeals going to someone other than Gary Bettman. Whoopie.

The point of the NHL's offer this week was to turn the conversation from, "Hahaha look at this stupid focus group garbage," to, "Aren't the players a bunch of jerks for trying to rob you of an 82-game season by not accepting our slightly-less-insulting-than-the-original offer? We sure think so."

To some extent, it worked. That's why they negotiated in public and put the whole thing, more or less, on its website, complete with a handy-dandy explanation of all the nice and cool things the NHL was offering. Not that there weren't some good things in there (some of which helped the teams that conformed to the league's war against cap-circumventing contracts in an entertaining and largely-acceptable way), but there certainly weren't enough that the players should have considered entertaining it for more than a minute.

[Sunaya Sapurji: Meet the most interesting man in junior hockey]

But again, it was a PR move, and so the NHLPA fought back in the only way it knew how, offering three proposals with all different terms, but two of them with revenue shares based on growth, rather than just flatly dropping to 50-50 as the NHL's does. The other, which they had to know the league would never accept under any circumstance, sure doesn't make Bettman look good. Basically, it said, "We'll go to 50-50 today if you give us the money you owe us on the current deals up front."

Oof. That last part really has to sting Bettman. The players were ready to capitulate to your 50-50 demands right away, as long as the owners you represent in all this gave them the money contractually owed them.

Instead you pitched a fit to the media and considered it to be in a different language than what you were asking.

This is, in the NHL's mind, not acceptable. Reason enough for Bettman to storm out of a Toronto office building after talking about how deeply disappointing all this non-capitulation is — and to be sure, that's the only thing he's upset about — then get in a hired car and take the first flight back to New York City. Second time in a row that's happened. All the PR spin in the world can't change the fact that it's the league, not the PA, that refuses to negotiate.

"There was nothing to talk about," Gary? Sounds to me like that's only because the things to talk about weren't exactly what you wanted to hear. Next time try holding your breath until your face turns blue. That'll show everyone that you and aren't being inflexible at all.

Don Fehr, the players, and the fans (one of whom you directly lied to less than two hours before your press conference) will know you mean business.

Pearls of Biz-dom
We all know that there isn't a better Twitter account out there than that of Paul Bissonnette. So why not find his best bit of advice on love, life and lappers from the last week?

BizNasty on the bright side: "Insult me all you want but I'm still tied for 1st in every single statistical category in the NHL right now."

If you've got something for Trending Topics, holla at Lambert on Twitter or . He'll even credit you so you get a thousand followers in one day and you'll become the most popular person on the Internet! You can also visit his blog if you're so inclined.

No Comments Share Read More

Should NHL rookies be limited to 2-year entry level deals?

18 Oct
2012

One of the most surprising elements of the NHL's CBA proposal to the players was on Entry Level contracts:

Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

This was a radical shift from the NHL's initial proposal back in July, which called for a 5-year maximum on rookie contracts; in other words, young players would be locked into salary-restricted entry-level deals well into their productive years.

(On the flip side, their teams save money and keep talented young players in the fold.)

Why did the NHL decide short-term rookie deals were the way to go? Are you in favor of them?

From Pierre LeBrun of ESPN, on the rookie deals:

You may wonder why the heck the league would want to shorten the entry-level deal.

Combined with the fact that the league also asked for a five-year limit on term for contracts and UFA eligibility to go to eight years or 28 years old, what the league is trying to do here is change the dynamics of the second contract -- limit the financial flexibility of the second contract -- and change the system so that players now make their big money in the third contract.

Look at the players that got in under the wire with their second contracts: Taylor Hall is a $6 million a year (beginning in 2013-14) player despite never having broken 60 points; Jeff Skinner had 63 points to win the Calder and then struggled in his sophomore season, but also earned a $6 million annual salary deal (6 years) from the Carolina Hurricanes.

There's no denying the talent both players possess; but at this point in their careers, this is still playing for potential.

So is this a contentious element in the new deal? Yes it is, as Mirtle writes in the Globe & Mail:

Players believe making entry level deals (Standard Player Contracts) shorter and moving arbitration eligibility later will leave a large group of young players entering their third, fourth and fifth seasons without a contract and without any way to negotiate a deal beyond holding out.

Currently, arbitration acts a "fail-safe" for getting a "fair" deal done for many of these players. The league, however, believes too many unproven young players are being paid well too early in their careers.

There are also some proven young players that get overcompensated in their second contracts.

Hey, look, Drew Doughty's an outstanding player who now has a Stanley Cup ring. But he has a higher cap hit from his second contract ($7 million) than Zdeno Chara does as a 35-year-old defenseman ($6,916,667).

The combination of contractual changes proposed by the NHL would, in theory, force young players to make less money because their leverage is limited. But as one anonymous agent told Michael Traikos of the National Post, the cream of the crop will still get their money:

"If the guy's a good player, we're going to negotiate early anyway," he said. "We're still going to get it. At the end of the day, a team's not going to let a good player go."

The rookie contract limit and the 5-year cap on all contracts are two options that Donald Fehr could target and, in theory, "win" for the players in a counterproposal. (Especially the 5-year cap, which seems designed for Fehr to pivot off of to, say, a 7-year cap.)

But even if it goes through, do you trust the owners' self-control enough to keep the salaries of young players deflated in the next CBA, even with the restrictions?

Tags: cap, , , entry level, limit, , , SPC
No Comments Share Read More

Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Breaking down the NHL CBA offer with Nick Kypreos

17 Oct
2012

It's a Wednesday edition of Marek vs. Wyshynski beginning at 2 p.m. ET/11 a.m. PT, and we're talking about the following and more:

Special Guest Stars: Marek and Wysh speak with Nick Kypreos of Sportsnet on the CBA

• News and notes from about the hockey world.

Question of the Day: Name an NHL record you never want to see broken.

Email your answers to or tweet them with the hashtag #MvsW to @jeffmarek.

Click here for the Sportsnet live stream or click the play button above! Click here to download podcasts from the show each day Subscribe to the podcast via iTunes or Feedburner.

Tags: , , , Marek, , Nick Kypreos, Sportsnet, , Wysh
No Comments Share Read More

Death to salary cap cheaters! NHL proposal targets circumvention, punishes teams

17 Oct
2012

It's been predestined since the start of negotiations: The next NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement is going to outlaw long-term contracts with creative, salary cap circumventing accounting.

For every team that has dabbled in the dark arts of front-loaded deals, there's another team (hi, Brian Burke) that despises them. But most importantly, Gary Bettman isn't a fan: These contracts helped subvert the rules that the NHL closed down a season to establish, and frankly that's an embarrassment for the commissioner.

The NHL's latest proposal to the players features a 5-year maximum for any non-rookie contract, and that the "maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5 percent of the value of the first year of the contract."

What does that mean? Well, if a player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his deal, his compensation cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC. No giant peaks or valleys.

This would effectively kill the cap-circumventing contract, going forward. No more Marian Hossa deals that have salary dips from $7.9 million in 2015-16 to $4 million in 2016-17. No more Roberto Luongo contracts that go from $6.714 million in 2017-18 to $3.382 million the following season. Conversely, no more Ilya Kovalchuk deals that rise from $6 million to $11 million in Years 2-3.

But the NHL's CBA proposal doesn't end The War On Cap Circumvention there. Oh no sir (and/or ma'am) it does not. The NHL intends to also go after the teams that were handing out these cap-cheating megadeals under the terms of the previous CBA. Including some close friends of the commissioner …

One of our major gripes with the NHL's decision to go after Kovalchuk's (admittedly preposterous) 17-year contract with the New Jersey Devils was that it was selective enforcement. There was tacit endorsement of clear cap circumvention when the NHL looked the other way on Hossa, Luongo and others.

Retroactively punishing the teams that abused the system has been a facet of these NHL proposals since the CBA talks began. Damien Cox reported in September that the new CBA could punish the Devils for Kovalchuk and other cap-circumventing deals:

It's not just Kovalchuk, of course. All the long-term deals that conclude with much smaller salaries would theoretically be impacted. Like Marian Hossa's with Chicago, which has a $5.25 million cap hit but pays out only $1 million in each of the final four years.

Or Henrik Zetterberg's deal with Detroit, which pays out a total of $5.25 million in the final three years. Or Roberto Luongo's arrangement with Vancouver, which pays a total of $7 million for the final four years when Luongo is between the ages of 39 and 43. If there's no takers for Luongo's contract now, imagine how the market will freeze up if teams know that they'll also be liable for the full $5.33 million cap hit even after Luongo is almost certainly retired.

The answer: The team that trades for Luongo won't be liable for his cap hit when he retires before his contract terms ends.

According to the owners' proposal, the Vancouver Canucks will be the ones paying for it.

From the NHL's latest CBA proposal:

All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

This provision has been labeled the "Wade Redden Rule" in honor of the banished New York Rangers defenseman, collecting millions off the cap in the AHL. But it also affects players on long-term deals in the NHL.

To use Luongo as an example: He makes $5,333,333 against the cap. Let's say he's traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, and then retires in 2019 with three years left on his deal. Under the terms of this CBA, that $5,333,333 cap hit would then be reapplied to the Canucks for the next three years.

(Keeping in mind that by 2019, we might not even had a salary cap if the players take a run at the system in the next CBA … or, gulp, this one.)

What this provision does is punish not only the teams that circumvented the cap during the "hey, EVERYONE'S doing it" days, but also the teams that tried to sneak in under the wire before the CBA expired: Shea Weber's 14-year contract, matched by the Nashville Predators after it was handed out by Ed Snider; Zach Parise and Ryan Suter's 13-year deals that drop significantly in 2022; and going back to last summer, Christian Ehrhoff's preposterous contract with the Buffalo Sabres in which he earns $6 million in the last four years and $34 million in the first six.

Again, this could just be one of those planks in the NHL's CBA platform that's there so Donald Fehr can negotiate it out in the players' counterproposal.

Or perhaps the NHL is serious about punishing some of its most important owners — Rocky Wirtz, Mike Illitch, Ed Snider (if he's on the hook for the Jeff Carter deal, as Travis Hughes suspects) — for helping to circumvent the rules they put in place seven years ago.

Tags: cap, , circumvention, , , NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement, , Roberto Luongo
No Comments Share Read More

Read the full NHL CBA proposal to players, including end of Gary Bettman as appellate judge

17 Oct
2012

In case you were wondering if the National Hockey League was on the power play in their latest proposal to players, here's the equivalent of unleashing a Zdeno Chara slap shot: The NHL released the full contents of their proposal on Wednesday morning, in an unprecedented, cards-on-the-table move.

It was one made out of necessity, as news leaked all over about the proposal. But here it is, as the NHLPA received it. Kudos to the NHL for making it so.

A few of the highlights:

• The salary cap would be $59.9 million for the 2012-13 season; but seeing as how 16 teams are currently over that limit, the NHL will allow teams to go over that cap up to $70.2 million for this season only. The salary cap floor will be $43.9 million; every team in the League is over that floor at the moment.

• The rookie contract maximum is two years, unless a player plays a partial season in which case the contract will cover that season and two subsequent seasons. This is an attack on the "second contracts" for players, which have proven to be some of the most lucrative in the NHL and inflationary to the cap system.

• Hockey Related Revenue still needs "mutual clarification," which is no doubt still a sticking point for the NHLPA.

• Finally, this one:

Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

That's right: Brendan Shanahan's massive suspensions (i.e. a "clearly erroneous" judgment on a player's actions) will be reviewed by a third-party arbitrator rather than the man who hired Shanahan to make the rulings, i.e. Gary Bettman.

Read the full NHL proposal …

Term:

Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.

HRR Accounting:

Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.

Applicable Players' Share:

For each of the six (6) years of the CBA (and any additional one-year option) the Players' Share shall be Fifty (50) percent of Actual HRR.

Payroll Range:

Payroll Range will be computed using existing methodology. For the 2012/13 season, the Payroll Range will be computed assuming HRR will remain flat year-over-year (2011/12 to 2012/13) at $3.303 Billion (assuming Preliminary Benefits of $95 Million).

2012/13 Payroll Range…

Lower Limit = $43.9 Million

Midpoint = $51.9 Million

Upper Limit = $59.9 Million

Appropriate "Transition Rules" to allow Clubs to exceed Upper Limit for the 2012/13 season only (but in no event will Club's Averaged Club Salary be permitted to exceed the pre-CBA Upper Limit of $70.2 Million).

Cap Accounting:

Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

All years of existing SPCs with terms in excess of five (5) years will be accounted for and charged against a team's Cap (at full AAV) regardless of whether or where the Player is playing. In the event any such contract is traded during its term, the related Cap charge will travel with the Player, but only for the year(s) in which the Player remains active and is being paid under his NHL SPC. If, at some subsequent point in time the Player retires or ceases to play and/or receive pay under his NHL SPC, the Cap charge will automatically revert (at full AAV) to the Club that initially entered into the contract for the balance of its term.

Money paid to Players on NHL SPCs (one-ways and two-ways) in another professional league will not be counted against the Players' Share, but all dollars paid in excess of $105,000 will be counted against the NHL Club's Averaged Club Salary for the period during which such Player is being paid under his SPC while playing in another professional league.

In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

System Changes:

Entry Level System commitment will be limited to two (2) years (covering two full seasons) for all Players who sign their first SPC between the ages of 18 and 24 (i.e., where the first year of the SPC only covers a partial season, SPC must be for three (3) years).

Maintenance of existing Salary Arbitration System subject to: (i) total mutuality of rights with regard to election as between Player and Club, and (ii) eligibility for election moved to five years of professional experience (from the current four years).

Group 3 UFA eligibility for Players who are 28 or who have eight (8) Accrued Seasons (continues to allow for early UFA eligibility -- age 26).

Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

Limit on year-to-year salary variability on multi-year SPCs -- i.e., maximum increase or decrease in total compensation (salary and bonuses) year-over-year limited to 5% of the value of the first year of the contract. (For example, if a Player earns $10 million in total compensation in Year 1 of his SPC, his compensation (salary and bonuses) cannot increase or decrease by more than $500,000 in any subsequent year of his SPC.)

Re-Entry waivers will be eliminated, consistent with the Cap Accounting proposal relating to the treatment of Players on NHL SPCs playing in another professional league.

NHL Clubs who draft European Players obtain four (4) years of exclusive negotiating rights following selection in the Draft. If the four-year period expires, Player will be eligible to enter the League as a Free Agent and will not be subject to re-entering the Draft.

Revenue Sharing:

NHL commits to Revenue Sharing Pool of $200 million for 2012/13 season (based on assumption of $3.303 Billion in actual HRR). Amount will be adjusted upward or downward in proportion to Actual HRR results for 2012/13. Revenue Sharing Pools in future years will be calculated proportionately.

At least one-half of the total Revenue Sharing Pool (50%) will be raised from the Top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs in a manner to be determined by the NHL.

The distribution of the Revenue Sharing Pool will be determined on an annual basis by a Revenue Sharing Committee on which the NHLPA will have representation and input.

For each of the first two years of the CBA, no Club will receive less in total Revenue Sharing than it received in 2011/12.

Current "Disqualification" criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.

Existing performance and "reduction" standards and provisions relating to "non-performers" (i.e., CBA 49.3(d)(i) and 49.3(d)(ii)) will be eliminated and will be adjusted as per the NHL's 7/31 Proposal.

Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline:

Introduction of additional procedural safeguards, including ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

No "Rollback"

The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it worked under the expired CBA.

Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision:

The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.)

Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits. The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

• • •

The final section here is a key one: Deferring payment on current contracts. Will the NHLPA actually trust the League to come through?

Donald Fehr responded to the offer in a letter to the players, as revealed by TSN's Bob McKenzie, including this bit on the last section:

"The proposal includes a "Make Whole" provision, to compensate players for the anticipated reduction in absolute dollars from last year (2011-12), to this year and next year. However, it would work like this. The Players Share in subsequent years would be reduced so that this "Make Whole" payment would be made. It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

Yeah ... this might not fly.

Tags: , , , , payroll, , , SPCs
No Comments Share Read More

David Backes optimistic after NHL proposal, hopes Russians return from KHL

17 Oct
2012

David Backes of the St. Louis Blues is an American hero and therefore speaks with authority on a great many things.

Backes opined on the NHL's latest CBA proposal to the players, which offered a 50/50 split on revenue and maintained an 82-game regular season, Tuesday night on Josh Rimer's NiteCap program,

"I thought it was a gesture in the right direction. That they're willing to finally take these negotiations seriously," said Backes.

"I think the NHL's finally off their substantially one-sided proposal. We're speaking in real terms and hopefully we can work it out."

The NHL's proposal was a four to five page document that broadly sketched its plans for the next CBA. Backes said that some subjects — specifically Hockey Related Revenue — needed clarification, as they could potentially lower the players' share.

Can the NHLPA, which intends to issue a counteroffer on Thursday, help get this thing settled in time for an 82-game season?

"Right now, it's anyone's guess. Beginning today, I think it was in the back of my mind that we're either going to make a lot of progress this week and get something done, or we're headed down a road that no one wants to go down, and that's a big cancellation of games and perhaps really bunkering each side in and potentially losing a full season," said Backes.

"The fact that the NHL came with a proposal really was a gesture that they want to get something done. We're excited about it, but there's still work to be done."

It's one thing to be excited; it's another thing for Donald Fehr to make a deal this early in the process, having spent months getting the players to dig their heels in for a prolonged fight.

Do the players believe he can get a deal done?

"I think the players have had a ton of conversation with him. We want a fair deal that gets us back on the ice," said Backes.

The Blues captain has opted not to play overseas during the lockout, while eight of his teammates have left for other work. "I love my North American way of living," he told Rimer. (Ed. Note: He obviously means the quality of our BBQ.)

Backes said he doesn't take issue with players that did leave for teams overseas, and sounded as if he expected they'd return when the NHL does.

But he does have one concern … about the KHL.

"The only problem I do have is maybe the Russian guys that are back in the KHL, seeing some of the money that those guys can pull in that League, hoping that when this all gets figured out, hoping they come back and play in the NHL," he said.

It probably doesn't help when players like Ilya Bryzgalov are making noise about players staying in the KHL this season. Sounds like someone needs an Inglorious Backes reeducation ...

Tags: , , david backes, gesture, hero, Josh Rimer, , proposal, , St Louis Blues,
No Comments Share Read More

NHL expansion to Toronto, Quebec City after CBA is settled? Well, of course

16 Oct
2012

In the NHL's last proposal before the lockout started, the League offered a deal "in which the players get 49 percent of hockey-related revenue in Year One, 48 percent in Year Two, and 47 percent over the final four years," according to Mirtle.

Now why would the owners want that decline in the players' share over time? Could it be the Canadian television rights windfall coming to the League in 2014? Sure.

Could it be expansion to two lucrative Canadian markets during the term of the next CBA?

That's been the speculation for a while, and Jason Kay of The Hockey News turned up the heat last week:

Massive new streams of hockey-related revenue? Check. Dozens of new jobs for NHL players, in markets they've been clamoring to receive teams? Check. Appeasement of bitter Canadian fans who would suddenly shower Gary Bettman with candy and flowers like the good people of Winnipeg did? Check.

Here's Jonathan Willis of Cult of Hockey on the possibility of expansion:

In some ways, this isn't a surprising comment. It's been more than a decade since the NHL's last wave of expansion, and there have been a number of hints that the league sees itself at 32 franchises eventually — including the attempted realignment to four divisions this past year. There's a new arena being built with public money in Quebec City and in Pierre-Karl Peladeau there's a rich man well-positioned to own a team. Meanwhile, the Toronto Maple Leafs are far and away the league's most profitable franchise — at least based on Forbes' estimates — and there is no question that the market could sustain a second profitable team (though it likely would impact both the Leafs' and the Buffalo Sabres' bottom line).

Here's Travis Hughes of SB Nation:

Polarizing agent Allan Walsh said recently that expansion fees could reach $500 million per team. That seems a bit high, but the message is clear: Expansion will bring the league a lot of money, and those fees get divvied up by the 30 existing teams. That's a really great, simple way to make up for revenue lost in a lockout.

The Maple Leafs are also set to make a bunch of money in the event a Markham team enters the league. Toronto holds the territorial rights in the region and, according to the NHL's constitution, they'd have to give written consent to a team that wishes to play within 50 miles of the Toronto city limits. Markham would have to pay for that consent.

The territorial rights thing, in my conspiratorial mind, was settled on a handshake when Rogers and Bell were approved to buy the Leafs; hey, who do you think would get the television rights for a second NHL team in Toronto?

I've long thought that the NHL would expand to Toronto and Quebec City and then relocate to Seattle when the time was right. First, because Seattle probably needs an NBA tenant first, and because relocation is less costly than expansion; which is why, second, the NHL could bleed millions from hockey-starved owners in those Canadian markets, who know their investment will eventually be recouped.

Toronto's a slam-dunk; even as the Clippers to the Leafs' Lakers, they'll print money in that market. But Quebec City isn't a sure-thing for expansion. First, because they're seen as a "lower limit" city that would need a strong Canadian dollar to remain viable.

Second, because they're doing it wrong: Winnipeg kept it on the down-low and landed Atlanta; Jim Balsillie sold season tickets to the Hamilton Predators, and was frozen out to the point where he needed a bankruptcy court to try and secure him the Coyotes. I'm not saying the Quebec group's money is no good for the NHL; but Bettman likes these things pulled off in a less public-posturing way.

There's a difference between if the NHL will expand — from a revenue perspective, those two markets should be slam-dunks — and whether it should expand. Is the talent pool there for two new teams? Does it water down a parity-stricken product even more? Is 32 teams too many? Would the Stanley Cup Playoffs need expanding?

I think expansion is inevitable. Do you want to see it happen?

Tags: , expansion, , , , Quebec, Quebec City, television
No Comments Share Read More

Shawn Horcoff: Gary Bettman’s ‘blatant lie’ about caring for NHL fans

16 Oct
2012

You can understand Shawn Horcoff's frustration with the NHL lockout.

The Edmonton Oilers forward is 34 years old. He's scheduled to make a base salary of $6.0 million in 2012-13, and his annual wage tumbles to $4 million and then $3 million the final two years of his 6-year contract — and that's before whatever type of rollback the NHL ends up winning in this round of CBA talks.

Horcoff's deal is kind of creative accounting the owners and GMs perfected since the salary cap was implemented, and are now attempted to eliminate in this work stoppage. So he feeds from one hand and gets punched in the face by the other. It's rather jarring, we imagine.

So Horcoff, who has been an active member of the NHLPA, isn't a fan of the lockout. Or the NHL's brass. Or Gary Bettman and Bill Daly in particular, as he revealed to Craig Custance of ESPN.com on Monday:

"It's the same thing every time with the owners. [Commissioner Gary Bettman's] first defense is to cancel games and test the players. There's been no effort to negotiate on his stance. Their negotiation is 'The players have to come down to us or we're not moving at all,' " Horcoff told ESPN The Magazine. "Gary has forced the players' hand into this situation and frankly, he's [ticked] us off. I think at the start, that first offer they gave out, that was a big, big mistake on Gary's part."

Well, yeah. There's no question about that, given that the players still believe the NHL's offer includes a 24-percent rollback. It could be argued that the NHL's initial offer — made with an eye towards starting the talks — set the CBA negotiations back weeks, maybe months.

But Horcoff also doesn't buy that the NHL actually cares about the paying customer in this dispute.

From ESPN:

"I sit there and read Gary and Bill's comments about, 'We feel sorry for the fans.' Well, I find that really hard to believe," Horcoff said. "I think it's a blatant lie, personally. I don't feel they feel sorry for the fans at all. Gary feels like no matter what, [the fans are] going to come back and couldn't care less if they're frustrated with this. He's going to do what it takes to get the best deal and couldn't care less what they feel."

There are a few ways to read Gary Bettman's affinity for fans, or lack thereof. Does he take us for granted? Of course, as does the rest of the NHL, blind to the damage this work stoppage is doing to its core audience.

Does Gary Bettman care about what fans think? Not about him, for sure. But he does have a general interest in the fans' likes and dislikes about the game? Sure; why else hire Frank Luntz to find out what we believe during the lockout?

But to Horcoff's point: Does Gary Bettman feel sorry for the fans?

Probably as much as the players do.

s/t Kukla

Tags: , , , , , , , rollback, Shawn Horcoff,
No Comments Share Read More

Good news, bad news on NHLPA’s CBA offer as talks with NHL continue Tuesday

15 Oct
2012

The NHL is headed to the NHLPA's turf for more collective bargaining on Tuesday, with the meetings taking place in Toronto.

So they're talking. Which is great. But about what?

One has to assume that core economic issues have been addressed in some fashion during their various talks about the ancillary stuff, but there hasn't been a session dedicated to the crux of the lockout in recent weeks.

[Also: 30 NHL team updates]

As John Shannon of Sportsnet wrote on Monday, it's a stalemate endorsed by the players:

How do we get to a compromise without Don Fehr or Gary Bettman losing face? The League maintains it is up to the Players to put the next offer on the table. Bettman and Daly snuck into town 10 days ago, and tried to pry one out of Fehr.

On their conference call on Friday, the players en masse reaffirmed to the executive director NOT to advance any offer unless the NHL shows something back first. The owners have always asked for some sort of salary adjustment. And if the players' proposal doesn't include such a rollback, then there is no point in talking. So much for compromise.

As Shannon notes, there's still a deep mistrust on the part of players that the NHL will take a mile if they give an inch; like when Bob Goodenow offered a 24-percent rollback on existing salaries in 2004, claimed a salary cap was a "non-starter" for the players and then had the NHLPA swallow both in the eventual settlement.

That said, a glimmer of hope from Darren Dreger of TSN:

Keep hearing about a radically different PA proposal. NHL also pondering its next move. It's all spin until a proposal is made.

— Darren Dreger (@DarrenDreger) October 15, 2012

So that's good news. Sorta. Obviously, any players' offer is going to have preservation of current contracts at its core, and the NHL want a salary adjustment. So round and round we go …

Tags: , Darren Dreger, , , John Shannon, , , NHLPA, rollback, Turf
No Comments Share Read More
1 2 3 8 9 Next »

Recent Posts

  • Tour Report: CIMB investing in Malaysian junior golf (PGA Tour)
    Tour Report: CIMB investing in Malaysian...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Baseball Daily Dose: Giant Performance
    Baseball Daily Dose: Giant Performance...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • The famous Jeremy Lin couch has vanished
    The famous Jeremy Lin couch has vanished...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Tour Report: Watch: Shots of the Week (PGA Tour)
    Tour Report: Watch: Shots of the Week (P...
    October 22, 2012No Comments
  • Brady Quinn replacing Cassel in Kansas City – Brady Quinn | KC
    Brady Quinn replacing Cassel in Kansas C...
    October 22, 2012No Comments