Daly cautiously optimistic about CBA negotiatons

[Macho0978]

Originally Posted by jlh2640

2004 Lockout was worth it. But what did 94 and 2012 really do ?
No way can it happen again

2012 may have done nothing for the Flames but fans of teams like Florida, Carolina or Arizona maybe disagree. When did we ever see Florida sign the 2nd most expensive UFA of the off-season. Hockey has never been in a better spot league wide than it is now

It also helped with some of the competitive advantages for rich teams had with loop holes found in the first CBA with a salary cap.

[simonsays]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Any CBA negotiation with Donald Fehr on one side will ensure a lockout. After he lied to baseball and the players walked before the playoffs made sure that no ownership group will ever trust him again.

I know the players continually talk about escrow but it is part and parcel of the hard salary cap, which they should all have known before they signed (poor communication by their own union). They are guaranteed 50% of HRR that is based off the forecasted amount before the season. If more teams than less pay to the cap then the players are eating up more than their 50%.

There are ways to reduce/eliminate escrow if the players are that chuffed about it. It wont result in any more cash for the players, but if say the current 'mid point' were set as the cap (which is where escrow kicks in while the majority of teams spend near the ceiling) then players would likely be receiving an additional cheque when all the accounting is done. ie: Instead of signing for 7m and receiving 6.75m one would sign for 6.5 and receive 6.75. They won't be signing the same large dollar contracts, but the money will be the same. Another way is to align next years cap to the previous years HRR. This means that the accounting is pretty much always a year behind and that owners may suffer slightly if there is a dip in the HRR.

Originally Posted by shadowlord

The lockout of 2005 resulted in the salary cap, which has made it possible for the Flames to put together a somewhat competitive team without having to compete with sky-high budgets like New York Rangers or Toronto.

The Flames owners seem to willing to spend to nearly the cap every year since, but they seemed more budget-minded when there wasn't a cap.

I think that for the owners its a lot more palatable to spend to a fixed cap to stay competitive than it is to enter into an unlimited auction for talented UFAs. If small markets started bidding pre-2004 it would just drive the costs up for everyone, with little to show for it.

[jayswin]

"Daly is cautiously optimistic" means "So when this thing goes south like it does literally every time you can blame the other side!".

[You Need a Thneed]

I think an interesting way to deal with escrow, is to sign players to fixed percentages of the total cap, instead of fixed dollar amounts.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think an interesting way to deal with escrow, is to sign players to fixed percentages of the total cap, instead of fixed dollar amounts.

Isn’t that effectively what escrow is trying to accomplish, in a given year?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Isn’t that effectively what escrow is trying to accomplish, in a given year?

Sort of, but does it in a different way that could be more palatable to the players.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think an interesting way to deal with escrow, is to sign players to fixed percentages of the total cap, instead of fixed dollar amounts.

I have been beating this drum for a while now. It makes too much sense to me and solves plenty of issues with one stroke.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Chingas

I have been beating this drum for a while now. It makes too much sense to me and solves plenty of issues with one stroke.

You would still have Escrow though. Unless every team only spends to the midpoint of the floor and ceiling. AFAIK thats the reference point for the 50/50 revenue split. Everyone spending to the cap causes the escrow.

[CroFlames]

I wish they could just extend the agreement by one year at a time and continue to play while the union and league negotiate. Regular lockouts are ridiculous.

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

I think an interesting way to deal with escrow, is to sign players to fixed percentages of the total cap, instead of fixed dollar amounts.

That wouldn't work, because how would you give raises to players, who, for example, are coming off of ELC's? With all signed players getting automatic raises (since the cap has gone up), the only available money would come from expiring contracts.

Teams rely on cap increases to fund future player's raises.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Any CBA negotiation with Donald Fehr on one side will ensure a lockout. After he lied to baseball and the players walked before the playoffs made sure that no ownership group will ever trust him again.

Don Fehr is problematic in that he has a pathological hatred of owners, and is perfectly willing to sacrifice as much of his players' careers as necessary to take them down - if they let him. However, the 1994 strike was far more the fault of MLB owners than it was the union. Notably, one of their efforts to pressure the players into accepting a salary cap was to just stop paying into the pension plan mid-season. It backfired. Spectacularly. Both sides had agreed to play without a CBA and operate under the status quo. It was the owners who broke that arrangement first. And after the strike hit, the owners tried to impose a CBA. That, obviously, got crushed by the courts.

The problem I have with Don Fehr is that in 2002, he was set to do again what he did in 94 - cancel the World Series - over far lower stakes. Fortunately for baseball, the players themselves basically revolted and overturned their previous vote to allow a strike action.

And that, knowing Don Fehr, is what it will take to prevent a lockout in the NHL: The players need to tell Don Fehr to make a deal before the current CBA expires. They *should* be able to do it, given the only real sticking point is escrow, and that's easily solved by shifting the salary cap.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I wish they could just extend the agreement by one year at a time and continue to play while the union and league negotiate. Regular lockouts are ridiculous.

That is exactly what will happen if neither side moves to end the CBA...

3.1 Term.

(a) This Agreement is effective retroactive to September 16, 2012 (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until midnight New York time on September 15, 2022, and shall remain in effect from year to year thereafter unless and until either party shall deliver to the other a written notice of termination of this Agreement at least 120 days prior to September 15, 2022 or not less than a like period in any year thereafter.

(b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in subparagraph 3.1(a), either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement effective midnight September 15, 2020 ("early termination") by providing notice as specified hereafter.

(i) The NHL may exercise its option for early termination by delivery of written notification to the NHLPA of its election to do so on or before September 1, 2019.

(ii) If the NHL has not already done so, the NHLPA may exercise its option for early termination by delivery of written notification to the NHL of its election to do so on or before September 15, 2019.

Unfortunately, with most contracts, having a final end date always seems to be the kick that's needed to make both sides get serious about getting something done.