NHLPA is more likely to reject #NHL’s 50-50 offer than counter it
From what I was told earlier today, NHLPA is more likely to reject #NHL‘s 50-50 offer than counter it. PA is planning response right now.
— L.A. Lariviere (@L_A_theRiver) October 17, 2012
9 Responses to NHLPA is more likely to reject #NHL’s 50-50 offer than counter it
Leave a Reply
You must be to post a comment.
They gave a few counter proposals which apparently weren’t close to what NHL proposed.
shocker, no hockey, I truly hated listening to Toews and Gionta in their interviews, arrogant little pricks
I wanted to smack Gionta. Dude really annoyed me.
So, apparently the NHLPA did offer a 50/50 split as long as the contracts were honored. They were against the NHL’s proposal of reducing a later year salary to help pay for the first year. And used the quote of a player saying “So, they’re saying that in my 3rd year, my salary is going to be reduced to pay for my first year?” The NHLPA offered 3 legit proposals. However, all the interviews I saw involving the NHLPA resulted in a blame game.
They offered a 50/50 split eventually, with no loss of salary ever. meaning the almost 2 billion in salary they are paid as a group can never go down. They are both still wrong and greedy. For the most part the rest of the world is taking a step back to keep jobs, but not these guys. I understand they struggle to get by and feed there families but sometimes it has to be done. Both the NFL and NBA PA’s realized that this had to happen, but not the weaker league of the NHL….lol. And The NHLPA still doesn’t or ever will have my support in these matters as it is them that refused to start talks on a new CBA way back in Febuary. However pricks like Gionta like to say thungs like well if they want a whole season so bad where was this offer i July? Hey Gionta, where the FAWK was the NHLPA for the last 9months. Also the NHL, while doing nothing spectacular has at least moved a bit the PA has only ever stayed true to the proposal they first submitted.
If they want me to believe they settled for 50/50 then I want to see the changes they purposed in writing. The NHL had the decency to post to the public what they asked for the NHLPA can do the same. Until I see this so called “acceptance” I am considering it false.
This was posted on TSN
Option 1: This is a revision of a previous proposal. We would see a fixed player share the first three years of 1.92 Billion, 1.98 Billion and then 2.06 Billion. After that, the players share is frozen until revenues reached $4.12 Billion (that is, when 2.06 Billion is 50% of HRR). After revenues reach $4.12 Billion, the players share is 50% of HRR (plus a small increment if yearly growth exceeds the predicted 5% — 57% of revenue above 5% and 61% of revenue above 7.2%).
Option 2: Option 2 is similar in its effects. Simply, the players share will grow each year by 24.7% of any HRR increase (down from the current 57%). If HRR growth is at the 5% rate the owners predict, then the players share falls to 50% in year 5. At 7.2% the share falls faster. (After revenues reach 4.216 Billion, the players would also receive the same small increment of yearly growth as in Option 1.)
Option 3: This idea proceeds from an entirely different approach. We take two principles of this negotiation: the owners stated desire to reduce the players share to 50% of HRR, and the Players position that there is no reason to go backwards. This proposal bases that second principle on existing player contracts, not the players’ share. Here is how it works:
A reduction to 50% from 57% of HRR is a 12.3% cut (that is, 7/57), but the loss in an individual player’s salary would be about 13%. (This is because benefit costs do not fall and these come off the top.) The owners honor all existing player contracts. We do this by dividing an existing contract, on a yearly basis, into two separate parts: the 13% and the remaining 87%. The 13% is paid to the player in any event, and it is not counted in the players share and is also off the cap.
– The remaining 87% of existing contracts, plus all new contracts, go into the players’ share (plus all benefits). Thus constructed, the players share will become 50% of HRR, immediately.
– This means that an individual player under an existing contract would receive the 13% segregated, plus a normal payment, subject to escrow, of 87% of his salary. A player with a new contract would have 100% of his salary subject to the 50/50 split. However, since the 13% of existing contracts are off the cap, this should create more cap space, which will be important as the cap will be squeezed.
– Over time, the existing contracts expire, and the share will fall towards 50%. Below is a chart showing the anticipated savings, but these could be greater if there are a significant number of buyouts.
I heard on the Fan today, that apparently the leafs have made a deal to acquire luongo and the trade will be announce once the lockout is over. BS?
Ya apparently its from a credible source. There is also a rumor going around that at the draft Vancouver rejected Schenn for Luongo. I think with the new rules that are being proposed in the CBA, Luongo is the ideal fit for Toronto. If there is a full season lockout I would rather wait and see if we can get a goalie through free agency, but his contract isn’t looking so bad right now.