You are not connected. Please login or register

 » The other NHL teams » General Hockey talk » NHL CBA Talk

NHL CBA Talk

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 35 ... 65, 66, 67

Go down  Message [Page 67 of 67]

991NHL CBA Talk - Page 67 Empty Re: NHL CBA Talk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:56 am

shabbs


Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans! Wink

992NHL CBA Talk - Page 67 Empty Re: NHL CBA Talk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:00 pm

SeawaySensFan


Franchise Player
Franchise Player
shabbs wrote:Heh. Nothing's mutual in these shenanigans! Wink

Big roadblock there!

Edit: Looks like I spoke to soon... Various reports have the new CBA agreed to, in principle, subject to setting the profit split on "Game On" merchandise...

more to come

993NHL CBA Talk - Page 67 Empty Re: NHL CBA Talk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:15 pm

Hoags


All-Star
All-Star
SeawaySensFan wrote:
This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

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

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

That was put in because Fehr argued that Glendale's subsidies to the NHL should count as HRR. The league just wants to clarify everything so that doesn't happen again.

They've made no proposed changes in quite a while, make whole simply charges the existing out of the player's share but it doesn't redefine what revenue is or isn't.

994NHL CBA Talk - Page 67 Empty Re: NHL CBA Talk on Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:30 pm

SeawaySensFan

SeawaySensFan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Hoags wrote:
SeawaySensFan wrote:
This is the line about HRR from the NHL proposal:

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

PA is giving more weight to italic and league interprets this as HRR staying the same.

That was put in because Fehr argued that Glendale's subsidies to the NHL should count as HRR. The league just wants to clarify everything so that doesn't happen again.

They've made no proposed changes in quite a while, make whole simply charges the existing out of the player's share but it doesn't redefine what revenue is or isn't.

Was that an existing interpretation? If not, that statement would have nothing to do with that. To leave that out of the discussion the clause would have said existing accounting of HRR to remain through the life of the new CBA. The clause as it is leaves existing HRR definitions up for review doesn't it?

-------

http://www.gmhockey.com/viewtopic.forum?t=5760

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 67 of 67]

Go to page : Previous  1 ... 35 ... 65, 66, 67

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum