NHL Lockout Morning Coffee Headlines – October 17, 2012.

Among today’s compilation of notable morning NHL headlines: analysis and reaction to the league’s recent CBA proposal, speculation the NHL could expand by two teams under a new CBA, and a running tally of lost ticket revenue and wages.

 

Hockey world awaits NHLPA’s response to NHL’s latest CBA offer.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: The NHL yesterday tabled a new CBA proposal which would see the league and the NHLPA split revenue 50-50.

ESPN.COM: Pierre LeBrun breaks downs the league’s proposal, which is a six-year proposal with an option for a seventh year, and also included a team’s ability to retain a portion of a player’s salary in trades, the salary cap lowered to $59.9 million, and salaries increase or decrease yearly by only $500K.  A league source claims the league is not trying to change the definition of hockey-related revenue under this proposal. Craig Custance reports NHL players are cautiously optimistic by the league’s recent proposal.

NBC SPORTS PRO HOCKEY TALKS: cited Ottawa Sun reporter Bruce Garrioch’s confirmation the next NHL CBA talks will take place on Thursday, October 18, as well as a series of “tweets” from TSN analyst Aaron Ward the PA will be seeking clarification of HRR under the league’s recent proposal.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: I’ve already provided analysis of the main points proposed by the league. I’ve also heard the gap between the cap floor and ceiling would remain $16 million, meaning a $59.9 million cap ceiling would result in a $43.9 million cap floor. A significant sticking point would be, of course, definition of HRR, especially for the players, so it’ll be interesting to find out what the league’s response will be and the PA’s reaction. It’s also interesting the league is willing to finally embrace the idea of allowing teams to “eat” a portion of a player’s contract to facilitate a trade, but if they’re going to allow the salaries of NHL players demoted to the minors to count against the cap, it therefore makes sense to allow this stipulation, since teams won’t be able to “bury” contracts in the minors under the league’s new proposal.  I believe overall the league’s made a good proposal here, and while I don’t believe the PA will accept it, I do believe the PA will use it as a starting point in further negotiations, and could include a number of the league’s proposals in a counter-offer. The next several days of negotiations will be crucial.

EDMONTON JOURNAL: noted a reports from Jason Kay of The Hockey News indicating there was “strong speculation” the NHL could expand by two new teams under a new CBA, one in Quebec City, the other in Toronto.

NBC SPORTS PRO HOCKEY TALK: reports the league has dismissed this rumor.

SPECTOR’S NOTE: I believe Toronto could handle two NHL franchises, and Quebec City will get a franchise in the near future, but my guess is those would be relocated franchises, not expansion teams.

NATIONAL POST: A running tally of the lost wages and ticket revenue so far during the NHL lockout.

5 Comments

  1. I agree, just barely, that the league has made a good proposal and I also agree that as it now stands the players would vote it down, if it came to a vote. While there seems to be some movement on the owners side most of that is counteracted by them wanting players to make concessions backward from what they were able to gain on their last contract.
    If his turns out to be a place from which honest negotiations can begin then good for hockey, but I am not holding my breath nor will I look forward to watching the season begin anytime soon.

  2. I don’t know about the two teams being relocation teams rather than expansion teams… The league can get more money from expansion rather than relocating teams. Why would the league want any team moved to the GTA when that area is a hockey hotbed thus charge a premium to anyone that wants to have a team there and that kinda goes with Quebec too…. Relocation of teams look like a choice the league would prefer to move a stuggling market team to a new city, like Seattle,Houston, KC for example etc.

    • I can see relocation to Q.C. (Phoenix, or N.Y.I. possibly) but I believe if there’s a move into the G.T.A. it’s going to require big $ going back to MLSE as well as Buffalo. A big expansion fee would help soften the pain…

    • expansion is a bad idea. First why expand to help revenue when you have half the league loosing money. Second, expansion will only continue to water down a league that is already to watered down. For the league to be successful and make real money the league should be a 26 team league and relocate some of the teams. Then there will be a superior product on the ice.

  3. Speculations crack me up. Especially about possible teams being added or moved. I do agree that Quebec will be the next one gaining a team, but there is. No way in hell that Toronto would be the second. Mostly because with cities like Kansas city and Portland sitting there with a arena ready to go and Virginia beach starting construction on a 200million dollar arena in hopes of landing a franchise, I honestly see them landing one first. Toronto can go back to hopeing but honestly stand a better shot of dumping Burke faster then landing a second NHL franchise.