Skip to content

Details reportedly emerge about NHL’s latest proposal

Aug 28, 2012, 10:21 PM EST

Gary Bettman AP

The NHL presented the players’ union with a new CBA proposal on Tuesday and some of the details are now being reported upon.

According to the Canadian Press, via the Globe and Mail, the new proposal is a six-year deal that would lower the players’ share of revenues to 51.6% in 2012-13, 50.5% in 2013-14, and provide the players with a 50-50 split for the final three seasons. According to Darren Dreger, the players would take a 49.6% share in Year 3 of the proposed CBA.

This all represents a reduction from the player’s current share of 57% of hockey-related revenues, but it is a greater share than the NHL’s original proposal.

However, as you probably suspect, it’s not that simple. As Chris Johnston reported, the initial three seasons of the proposed CBA are “delinked” from hockey-related revenues, while the final three seasons would operate under a redefined version of hockey-related revenues.

So what does that all mean?

Well, perhaps the easiest way to look at this is in terms of the salary cap. If this deal proceeds as planned, then the 2012-13 cap would be $58 million. Which, by the way, if there’s no rollback of current salaries or other adjustments, would mean that 16 teams are over the proposed cap based on the current figures from Cap Geek. The Boston Bruins and Minnesota Wild are currently exceeding the proposed salary cap by more than $10 million.

The USA Today speculates that because the NHL isn’t asking for salary rollbacks as far as existing contracts are concerned that “the adjustment could be made through changes in contracting practices, increases in league-wide revenue and contributions to player escrow.”

This proposal would also mean that the salary cap is projected to reach roughly $71 million in 2017-18. In other words, it might take six seasons before the proposed cap reaches the levels that the current CBA would set the cap at for 2012-13.

The two sides plan to meet again on Wednesday.

  1. mydadyourmom - Aug 28, 2012 at 10:31 PM

    wut?

  2. capsrockva - Aug 28, 2012 at 10:46 PM

    Just get the F***king thing done. I can’t believe what I heard from the skins today. They released Chris Cooley today. I’m

  3. biasedhomer - Aug 28, 2012 at 10:55 PM

    If the cap goes down that much without rollbacks, some of those FA signings this year will really screw up teams.

    • stakex - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:06 AM

      Obviously there would have to be something in place to deal with teams currently over the cap if it was lowered that much. I mean you can’t expect teams to cut as much as $10 million in cap space over night.

    • lopo - Aug 30, 2012 at 10:33 AM

      Ken Holland would suddenly look like a genius for missing out on ALL of the worthwhile, albeit overpriced, FA’s this summer.

  4. orangeandblack67 - Aug 28, 2012 at 11:01 PM

    All in all seams like not that bad of a proposal. It shows that there is some give and take going on and with more than two weeks left it is a start. As far as reaching the desired cap for not another 6 years I guess that’s up to wether the players can take delayed gratification over instant.

    • kitshky - Aug 29, 2012 at 3:21 AM

      Huh…?

      Can you please show where the give is in this proposal? There’s certainly take, but definitely no give.

      As far as players taking “delayed gratification over instant” (whatever that’s supposed to mean) you do realize you’re talking to people who’s average career is less than 5 years right?

  5. 950003cups - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:13 AM

    Lockout = 😡

  6. lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:23 AM

    So 16 teams, which would constitute a majority of the owners, would then be over the cap for next season. I’m so unbelievably baffled by these inconsistencies. What goes through these owners’ minds when they spend all summer offering these massive contracts to players knowing full well that they’ll try to lower the cap during CBA negotiations? I can’t even wrap my mind around it.

    • sunderlanding - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:01 AM

      They know they have to sing the players to the massive contract otherwise the players won’t play and they won’t have a team to market. Let’s remember the players hold out for the contracts and refuse to sign until the get them. They’re just as much to blame.

  7. sjsharks66 - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:29 AM

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.

    “I got a good idea! Let’s sign Zach parise and suter to 100 mil contracts, then complain about losing money!”

    • snowman218 - Aug 29, 2012 at 8:09 AM

      Chronologically, I believe it was the other way around, but who’s counting.

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:51 PM

      In Leipold’s defense, you gotta spend money to make money.

      /makes for the door.

  8. sportmentary - Aug 29, 2012 at 1:44 AM

    I think this is going to drag out for some time. Both sides are playing games and don;t care about the fans. Only the NHL & NHLPA would figure out how not to capitalize on the success of the 2011/12 season. Only those sides could figure a way screw things up.

    http://www.sportmentary.com/2012/08/like-greedy-pigs-who-overeat-nhl-nhlpas.html

  9. gbar22 - Aug 29, 2012 at 5:11 AM

    Of course the league would want the players to pay more into player escrow. I’m sorry but the players should not accept any deal where the cap is lowered tremendously from what the level would be at this present moment. Lockout here we come and this time I’m on the players side. The leafs rangers bruins etc should cough up more of their profits for league revenue sharing. Baseball had its richest teams use revenue sharing and that sport has thrived.

    • tatdue - Aug 29, 2012 at 10:42 AM

      If you were the owner of say the Bruins, would you be willing to give away millions of your hard earned money to the Coyotes just so they can stay in the league and keep taking more money from you?

      • flyersgoalscoredby88 - Aug 29, 2012 at 12:31 PM

        If you were the owner of the Bruins, you’d also own the Coyotes.

  10. irokkit - Aug 29, 2012 at 7:46 AM

    I find it disgusting! We see this year after year. The owners overpay, the players accept, the owners gripe they can no longer afford it! WHAAAAAT?
    I wonder how they became successful businessman in there other ventures? Now it’s clearly obvious that Bettmann has taken part in growing the game over the last 15 years. The over gregarious ego minded buffoon actually thinks he’s the only one that’s done it. He truly feels that the league can come back even stronger after a another lockout. While it may take some time he is probably right. I stayed away from baseball for 13 years after their last strike. But guess what I watch baseball today.

  11. xaf605 - Aug 29, 2012 at 8:54 AM

    Can we get the khl on tv in the u.s?

    • lostpuppysyndrome - Aug 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

      There’s websites out there that you can watch them on. I know of at least one. Let me know if you want it.

  12. orangeandblack67 - Aug 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM

    Well kitshky, the give in the proposal is the fact that the owners wanted to cut players share of hockey related revenue from 57% To 43%. The players proposal originally asked for a 50/50 split of HRR. As far as the comment on a 5 year career length average, I doubt the guys lasting only that long are in jeopardy of costing teams a whole lot of cap space.

    • kitshky - Aug 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

      First of all, it’s not give and take when your first offer is so ludicrous that even you realize you need to step back from some of your requests. That’s not give and take, that’s ask for and ask for a little less.

      I mention the average career length simply to point out that the average player is hurt the most by a work stoppage …one year could very well mean almost 25% of many players NHL career. I wasn’t talking about the salary cap ramifications at all.

      The unavoidable point here is simple, the league has operated for almost 4 years under a system that the owners designed, fought for, and implemented. They got massive salary rollbacks, escrow payments, a hard salary cap … and so on. Under this arrangement (again, designed by the owners) the league has flourished and reported record attendance, record profits, and seen a revival of US television exposure.

      Yet despite all that, the owners are once again crying about their inability to run their businesses…and again pointing the finger at the players. If this system isn’t working, it’s the owners system and it’s the owners fault.

      As well, it was the owners who came out and nixed the players offer to negotiate throughout the year if needed so if this year is lost … it’s the owners fault.

Featured video

More than a Stanley Cup hangover?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (4469)
  2. B. Bishop (3080)
  3. D. Krejci (2846)
  4. C. Crawford (2559)
  5. C. Kunitz (2341)
  1. O. Palat (2100)
  2. C. Perry (2051)
  3. B. Elliott (1980)
  4. T. Oshie (1815)
  5. J. Boychuk (1642)