Bettman must really want a lockout

sprague11 said:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=400580

10 years before unrestricted free agency, A sizeable cut in revenue sharing, 5 year maximum contracts?

Good luck with that. Thank goodness for OHL hockey.
Click to expand...

Initial demands (from both sides) are normally at the extreme. A buddy of mine is a consultant in 'CBA tactics' and this is rule number 1.
 
sprague11 said:
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=400580

10 years before unrestricted free agency, A sizeable cut in revenue sharing, 5 year maximum contracts?

Good luck with that. Thank goodness for OHL hockey.
Click to expand...

move small market teams at the right place, and there will be no revenue cut.

5 years maximum contract may be extreme, but Dipietro, Luongo, etc... contracts are extreme too!
 
coxy15 said:
I certainly hope you are right.That's some crazy opening
demands...
Click to expand...

That being said, it is a bit of different situation from a 'normal' CBA negotiation. Let's face it; though a lot of people whine and complain about how much athletes make and how they are prima donnas and the lot, owners of these sports franchises make the players look like minimum wage earners. The owners can more easily 'afford' to not have a season.

I'm not a tax expert by any means, but I would think that some of these owners get such enormous writeoffs on their corporate taxes when their team loses money, that they win either way: more writeoffs if there is a season, or more in their pocket if there isn't.

My favourite part of this whole thing is how certain owners (the ones of the teams that MAKE money and actually run the league) are going to react when they are told that not only are they going to have to keep Phoenix afloat for another year (I've lost track, but I think that is still up in the air, right?) they will probably be keeping New Jersey and potentially Florida afloat too. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Bettman is telling those 8 teams' owners that even more coinage is going to come out of their pockets this year.
 
Normally I'd agree that both sides posture to start, but this is Betman so you can never really tell.

With Fehr at the helm of the PA, my guess is he'll take this as a declaration of war.
 
I lmao reading all the things the NHL wants. The five year maximum contract length is especially funny considering these are the same guys that give players like Suter, Praise, Crosby, etc. 10+ year contracts.

The season isn't starting in October if the NHL wants anything remotely close to what's listed there.
 
Owners have to compete using the CBA in front of them, so I have no problem with them signing enormous contracts, and still wanting to change the CBA to limit such contracts. The players would be wise to be prepared to negotiate on all of these issues. If I were advising them I would be open to the maximum contract term and rookie contract length, but negotiate hard on the UFA clause and the revenue sharing numbers.
 
its like selling a car, list it for $25,000 and hope someone offers you $20,000

but is it just me? or before the lockout was it rare to see contracts over 5 years? i may be wrong, but i believe 5 years seemed to be on the long end for contracts back then..
 
The NHL has made their offer since they're the one to first come with a proposal.

It's like no different from when someone is selling cards and says, "make an offer".

I figure the players revenue will fall around 51-53%. That would still put the cap over $60 mil. I assume there is still the extra 5% the NHLPA can opt in.

I agree with the RFA lasting 10 years. I do find it odd that the NHL wants to limit the long contracts because it's the owners that are giving them, not the players asking for them. So I see them backing off on that if they get the longer RFA term. Same with the signing bonus issue, since it's the owners offering the ridiculous front loaded contracts.

I don't think the entry level minimum length will be accepted by the NHLPA.

The NHLPA will come back with their list of over the top demands and counter proposals to the NHL's. It all depends if they are both looking to get things settled, or if one side gets greedy.
 
There is negotiating tactics and then there is bullying. Betmen is trying to insult Fehr then work with these demands. In card terms it would be like offering $1 for a $30 card as well spitting on the card and calling your mom bad names. Instead of offering $10 and waiting for the dance to end at around 15-18. I see Gary sticking to $5-7 and not budging and doing another lock out in a recession because of his business expertise. I actually do find it weird that the owners mess things up then stiff the players. Players should come back with 3 year entry contracts, 8 year max, ufc after any contract expires.
 
53% of revenue to the players, 7 year max contracts, equal value salary for each year of contract, 8 years to UFA, 4 year entry level contracts and keep salary arbitration.

done deal. some give and take each way.

and if they really wanted to make things better overall for the NHL, completely remove 2 teams and relocate another team to Canada.
I won't get into which teams because then there would be hard feelings and a bashing coming my way, haha, but I still think its what needs to get done.
 
Orca Pod said:
That being said, it is a bit of different situation from a 'normal' CBA negotiation. Let's face it; though a lot of people whine and complain about how much athletes make and how they are prima donnas and the lot, owners of these sports franchises make the players look like minimum wage earners. The owners can more easily 'afford' to not have a season.

I'm not a tax expert by any means, but I would think that some of these owners get such enormous writeoffs on their corporate taxes when their team loses money, that they win either way: more writeoffs if there is a season, or more in their pocket if there isn't.

My favourite part of this whole thing is how certain owners (the ones of the teams that MAKE money and actually run the league) are going to react when they are told that not only are they going to have to keep Phoenix afloat for another year (I've lost track, but I think that is still up in the air, right?) they will probably be keeping New Jersey and potentially Florida afloat too. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Bettman is telling those 8 teams' owners that even more coinage is going to come out of their pockets this year.
Click to expand...

That bolded part makes no sense. While the tax write off may be nice for losing $10 million, that only gets you back about $3-4 million. You still lost $6-7 million.

I get a nice tax write off for my mortgage, but id still rather own my house outright and nto worry about my mortgage.
 
GrimUSMC said:
That bolded part makes no sense. While the tax write off may be nice for losing $10 million, that only gets you back about $3-4 million. You still lost $6-7 million.

I get a nice tax write off for my mortgage, but id still rather own my house outright and nto worry about my mortgage.
Click to expand...

You're comparing your piddly-*** mortgage in Podunk, PA, to one particular aspect of a multi-million dollar corporation/team owner(s) with dozens of businesses under its/their umbrella? Apples and oranges dude.
 
Orca Pod said:
You're comparing your piddly-*** mortgage in Podunk, PA, to one particular aspect of a multi-million dollar corporation/team owner(s) with dozens of businesses under its/their umbrella? Apples and oranges dude.
Click to expand...

No, Im stating that while a tax wrote off is nice, Im sure they would rather not lose the $10 million. Common sense pal, common sense.
 
GrimUSMC said:
No, Im stating that while a tax wrote off is nice, Im sure they would rather not lose the $10 million. Common sense pal, common sense.
Click to expand...

As I said, you are comparing your personal mortgage to a multi-layered corporation with many business aspects. They are apples and oranges.

The losses and tax writeoffs in venture A can be used to offset gains in Ventures B, C, and D, making things even better for the overall.

Like I said, I am not a tax expert by any means, but I do work with a couple on a daily basis. One of them actually worked for the Griffiths, and, for a time, Pattison (another very, very rich Vancouverite). A while back, he was mentioning about how complex their taxes were for the various companies and that it was quite rewarding to be able to transfer losses because it was better for the coprporation as a whole. I'll take his word for it over yours any day, even though I am not a tax expert.

Unless, of course, you can show me your credentials as a corporate tax expert, at which time I will give your 'common sense pal, common sense' appraoch some validity.
 


Write your reply...

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
389,545
Messages
2,233,510
Members
4,151
Latest member
barchamb13
Back
Top