Your 2012 National Hockey Lockout Thread

[NJTank]

Get R Done

[njmeadowlanders]

Let's end this dick-measuring contest and just drop the puck already for 's sake...

[NEW.ERA]

I'm on my phone. But this is what Sportsnet insider John Shannon said.

"Free Agency would be at 28 and 8 years of service."

That alone should tell you how the NHLPA will lean in a few hours.

[bosrs1]

I'm not getting my hopes up. That's still a lot of money between 50 and 57%.

[Island_Style]

Conference call scheduled at 5. Going to be an intense 24 hours. I think this is it. If this fails, no season.

[Kevin W.]

I'll sacrifice a small goat to the hockey gods if it means the PA will accept the deal.

[Lights Out]

I'll believe it when I see it. Considering who's in charge of this mess, the odds of this not backfiring are pretty microscopic, IMO.

[CS85]

Gary: "The owners and I will refuse to accept anything less than a 70/30 split."

Reporter: "Why?"

Gary: "Because f___ them, that's why."

[The_Admiral]

Something really happened in the last few hours for the owners to crack like this. I wonder if this could be a reprise of 1995, where enough of the water-carrying teams circumvented Bettman.

[IceCap]

Something really happened in the last few hours for the owners to crack like this. I wonder if this could be a reprise of 1995, where enough of the water-carrying teams circumvented Bettman.

That's what is going to have to happen. There's no way a compromise is reached if Bettman's allowed to dictate the owners ' position.

[The_Admiral]

Of course, Bettman got himself a supermajority clause after the 1995 debacle, so that he and just a few owners can override the wishes of everyone else. Remember, it's very important to make this league safe for the Nashville Predators.

[habsfan1]

Gary: "The owners and I will refuse to accept anything less than a 70/30 split."

Reporter: "Why?"

Gary: "Because f___ them, that's why."

This. I don't see both sides choosing friend and split everything 50/50. Everybody always want more, and I don't think either side is in a rush to settle this quickly.

[The_Admiral]

I know Molson is in a rush to settle this quickly. So is WirtzCorp. They're both getting double-screwed on this lockout as owners of their arenas and liquor suppliers to their arenas.

[ElwoodCuse]

Something really happened in the last few hours for the owners to crack like this. I wonder if this could be a reprise of 1995, where enough of the water-carrying teams circumvented Bettman.

Nobody "cracked". The owners merely moved their offer from "laughable" to "negotiable". This was a pure PR move so they can say "hey we want a full season and here's an offer that makes that happen! now it's up to those EVIL, GREEDY PLAYERS so blame them if you don't get all your hockey this year!"

Of course, Bettman got himself a supermajority clause after the 1995 debacle, so that he and just a few owners can override the wishes of everyone else. Remember, it's very important to make this league safe for the Nashville Predators.

The other leagues also require a 3/4 majority, this is not as evil or unheard of as everyone thinks. It's not "a few".

Was it so terrible that Roger Goodell needed 3/4 of the NFL owners to approve the CBA? Oh no, those rogues like the Oakland Raiders could torpedo everything!

[Sport]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=407542

Yesterday, if we were even at the level of cautiously thinking about becoming cautious about becoming cautiously optimistic, we can now go back to where we were before the league's proposal.

[The_Admiral]

Was it so terrible that Roger Goodell needed 3/4 of the NFL owners to approve the CBA? Oh no, those rogues like the Oakland Raiders could torpedo everything!

It's terrible when the NHL has a disparity among owners that other leagues don't. I don't think it's right that MLSE, Molson, MSG, Wirtz, Chipman-Thomson, and Aquilini, the guys who make the money for this garage league, could theoretically be vetoed by the likes of Peter Karmanos, Tom Cigarran, Cliff Viner, and whichever bobo is voting on behalf of the Coyotes this year. What the hell have they ever done to earn that power except spend taxpayers' money and lose everyone else's?

The proposal is up on nhl.com. Let's fisk it.

Board won't let me do all those quote blocks, so the NHL text is in bold green.

1. Term:

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

Reasonable enough, but god help me if there's another lockout in six years. I would have liked eight.

2. HRR Accounting:

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

The devil is in the undisclosed details here. What they're saying, or not saying, is that the shared pie is going to get smaller, with more revenue deemed not to be hockey-related, related as it may well be. This could prove problematic for getting this done.

3. 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.

Hard to argue 50-50. We grow up knowing that 50-50 is the fair and equitable thing to do, and that's still coming out ahead of the other leages with linked revenue. Everyone figured 50-50 was the endgame, but the fact that it's 50% of less money could, like I said, be a problem.

4. 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).

Ugh, this is a problem. The range is still 16. That's. not. enough. It's a real pickle, though, because if the range were something like 25 or 30 like it ought to be, poor teams would bitch that they can't compete with rich teams. If it were closer, it would by necessity have to be a larger figure than they could afford, and then poor teams would bitch that they're being bled out by the evil Canadians/northeasterners who support their teams too well, which is precisely why we're in this mess in the first place. You simply cannot have economic parity with situationally appropriate expenses in this league. Look, short of setting everyone's salary cap at a million dollars, there's just no way to make the economics of hockey Predator-friendly, so maybe they should just gtfo, okay?

Part 5 is a doozy, so we'll microfisk:

5. Cap Accounting:

• Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.

First, and very well only, shot fired against the poor.

• 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.

wtf. To de-legalize,

Anyone on a long-term deal will have his cap hit charged to the signing team, even if he retires or gets assigned to the AHL.

You can trade the player, but once he retires, the cap hit reverts to the signing team.

So if Luongo gets traded like everyone thought he would, then retires later, the ghost of his cap hit would come back to Vancouver's books for the balance of the contract. You can't Redden or Huet a guy anymore, either. I'm sorry, but that's a pile of crap. With the way this league bends over backwards to make sure low-revenue teams can shell their way to a semifinal, there still need to be privileges for the teams who pay the freight, and that can mean spending your way out of a boo-boo for the greater good. The punishment for frontloaded contracts is absolutely draconian, and I fail to see how dead cap space makes for better hockey. Are we going to punish teams in 2020 for sins of 2009?

• 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.

Looks like another Cristobal Huet rule. No more loaning players out of a bad situation, either. Again, I'm not certain how further hamstringing teams makes for better hockey games.

• 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.

Woohoo! Movable cap space, or something close to it! Finally, a break for high-revenue teams.

6. 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).

Reasonable changes here, but I don't know about taking ELCs down to two years. Suspicious that they had them going up to five, now down to two. Preemptive negotiating against selves?

• Maximum contract length of five (5) years.

Screw-the-rich rule.

• 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.)

Screw-the-rich rule.

• 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.

Re-entry waivers is absolutely the most retarded personnel mechanism in the history of sports. Rest in no peace whatsoever. Of course, they're gone not because it was the stupidest idea anyone has ever had but because there's no impetus to loan or assign underperformers.

• 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.

That's up from two. Solid move. NCAAers were getting more than a two-year window as well, so now you're basically just down to major-juniors who can plausibly re-enter the draft.

7. 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.

Okay, that's fair.

• 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 rich do have to pay their fair share.

• 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.

Okay, but does this mean we're going from objective formulas that determine revenue sharing to "I declare the Hurricanes shall get a ton of money because Peter Karmanos has a bitchin' skullet"? I believe in revenue sharing, but doling it out should be up to the numbers, not up to people. If you do nothing for this league, what help do you deserve? There could be too much favoritism at play here.

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

HUGE victory for hockey. This singlehandedly saves Long Island, not to mention New Jersey and possibly Anaheim. The "Screw Bill Wirtz" rule was terrible. More cynically, I must fear that this is another way to make sure that Phoenix, should that cockroach of a market still be around, can always get lots of handout money.

• 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.

And theeeeeeeere it is. Don't bother even trying to pull your weight! Rich Daddy Torontreal will always provide for you. What crap.

8. 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.

That's reasonable, though I feel that a third party should be involved from the outset of any disciplinary procedure, so that it's always determined among league, players, and third party.

9. 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.

More Fehr-proofing here as with the ELCs. This could be very problematic with the salary cap going down, however. There's still a lot of money on the books around the league, and with no rollback, nowhere for it to go. Where do you put it? The poor teams can't pay it, or, with big performance-free handouts being given out, can they?

10. 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,

Too much for me to parse at the end of this banquet. I'll hand it off to bosrs1.

Overall, I think this is pretty good, though I worry that they're putting too much of a burden on the teams that make this league what it is so that we can further fluff up those that don't. How many times can you go to the well? We could find out. I feel the league should belong to its best players and its best cities. If that means that replacement-level players and straggling markets cant make a go of it like they can today, good. We're better off without them. They should be crushed like bugs. Another concern is that unlike 2005, this CBA seems to be only financial, with no accompanying rules changes to make the game once more, like I said, belong to its best players. We're going to go right back to the disgusting trapping and shelling we saw last season, in fact made worse by how empowered this new revenue sharing will make low-revenue teams, who were already gaming the system so much that it made true hockey fans want to puke.

It's not perfect, but it's mostly fair. In the meantime, we'll just pretend that we can put out these dumpster fires around the league. It's preferable to cancelling another season and trying to pick up the pieces after that, presuming there would be pieces left to pick up.

YR THOUGHTS?

[NJTank]

There goes the season, the players can now make more money in the KHL. I think this is the death of the NHL, Gary Bettman has done his job.

[Island_Style]

There goes the season, the players can now make more money in the KHL. I think this is the death of the NHL, Gary Bettman has done his job.

Depends if it leads to a counter offer or not. A counter is a great sign.

[WSU151]

• 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 rich do have to pay their fair share. extra.

FTFY. Define "fair share" beyond some abstract unicorn and then we'll talk.

[The_Admiral]

Excuse me, I was trying to pre-empt the inevitable complaints that I was treating the whole thing like an incorrigible Blackhawks homer who didn't want his team to be punished. Besides, I was pretty much liveblogging my analysis; way to not include the next few lines where I blew up at hitting up the big markets for more money just to dump it on Nashville and Raleigh, no strings attached.