Currently browsing: Nashville Predators
Clarksville, TN – My brain has done itβs weightlifting by figuring out my taxes. Now, it is time for some cardio. Here are my Fourthoughts for this week.
Lady Coyotes Hang Tough
The Tennessee Softball Coaches Association Tournament concluded Saturday, April 12th. The fields at the Heritage Sports Complex were filled with 26 competing softball teams, including eight local teams.
West Creek Softball (Michael Rios Clarksville Sports Network)
«Read the rest of this article»
Sections: Basketball (Men)
, Basketball (Women)
, Featured Story
, Memphis Grizzlies
, Nashville Predators
, Tennessee Titans
, West Creek
| No Comments
The National Hockey League issued the following release Wednesday:
Following is the full text of the NHL’s offer for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement in order to preserve a full, 82-game season that the National Hockey League presented Tuesday to the NHL Players’ Association (along with the accompanying commentary and descriptions also provided to the NHLPA). While the original intention was not to release the details of the offer publicly, not surprisingly there have been widespread reports attempting to describe and characterize the terms of the offer that understandably are incomplete. As a result, we believe that full public disclosure at this stage is both necessary and appropriate.
See a detailed explanation of the proposal
NHL PROPOSAL TO SAVE 82-GAME SEASON
Six-year Agreement with mutual option for a seventh year.
2. HRR Accounting:
Current HRR Accounting subject to mutual clarification of existing interpretations and settlements.
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.
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).
5. Cap Accounting:
Payroll Lower Limit must be satisfied without performance bonuses.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Maximum contract length of five (5) years.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Current “Disqualification” criteria in CBA (for Clubs in Top Half of League revenues and Clubs in large media markets) will be removed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TORONTO — The NHL made a proposal for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement on Tuesday, one designed to allow an 82-game schedule for 2012-13 NHL season to take place.
“We very much want to preserve a full 82-game season and in that light we made a proposal, an offer really,” Commissioner Gary Bettman said. “It is our best shot at preserving an 82-game regular season and [Stanley Cup] Playoffs.”
Commissioner Bettman announced the proposal after he and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly held an hour-long meeting with the National Hockey League Players’ Association Executive Director Don Fehr and Special Counsel Steve Fehr at the Union office.
Bettman said that the offer, which splits hockey-related revenue at 50-50, is contingent upon a full season being played and suggested that the season could begin Nov. 2. He also said the League is not asking for salary rollbacks from the players.
“We’re focused on getting the season started on Nov. 2. That’s what this offer was about.”
“Gary indicated to me and I assume he indicated to you that they would like to get a full 82-game season in,” Don Fehr said. “We, of course, share that view and would like to get a full 82-game season in. And, so, what our hope is that after we review this that there will be a feeling on the players’ side that this is a proposal from which we can negotiate and try to reach a conclusion. But, we are not in a position to make any comments about it beyond that at this point.”
By Dan Rosen - NHL.com Senior Writer
NEW YORK — After a full day of negotiations toward a new Collective Bargaining Agreement, National Hockey League Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly expressed his disappointment in the lack of progress being made between the NHL and National Hockey League Players’ Association.
“I’d have to say overall today we didn’t really move the ball forward that much,” Daly said Wednesday night outside the League office.
In hopes of moving the process forward, Daly said the League is urging the Union to make a proposal on the fundamental economic issues dividing the two sides.
He said those issues were not discussed Wednesday.
“We hear, we understand that they’ve been working on some concepts, some ideas — we’ve suggested to them just make the proposal,” Daly said. “Any movement is better than no movement at all. Hopefully we’ve moved it forward, but even if we move backwards it might be better than where we are now. That was our message to them.”
The NHL has already cancelled the first two weeks of the 2012-13 regular-season schedule and Daly estimated the result is a shared revenue loss between the League and the Players’ Association of approximately $140 million. He previously estimated a shared loss of $100 million as a result of not playing the preseason schedule.
“So, we’re up to $240 or $250 million in jeopardy. It’s unfortunate for both of us,” Daly said. “It’s a significant amount of money that the players share in on a significant basis. Whatever percentage that basis ends up being, it’s a significant basis. Even more disappointing from our perspective — and should be from our collective perspective — is obviously we felt like over the last seven years we’ve built up a lot of momentum in the business, had a lot of growth, and who knows what a work stoppage like this will do to that momentum.”
Prior to a late-afternoon bargaining session focused on health and safety issues as well as various legal issues, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman and Daly met privately with NHLPA Executive Director Donald Fehr and Special Counsel Steve Fehr for approximately 50 minutes Wednesday afternoon. Commissioner Bettman, Daly and the Fehr brothers also met in Toronto on Friday.
Daly said the purpose of those meetings was to attempt to generate some ideas to move the process forward.
Steve Fehr said it was “hard to tell” if any progress was made in the private meeting Wednesday.
“Having done this for a number of disputes over a number of years you often don’t know whether you’re making progress until you look back on it,” Steve Fehr added. “I don’t want to get too much into detail of that discussion, but we were just sort of discussing the overall status of the bargaining, where the parties are.”
The two sides are currently meeting again Thursday at the League office.
Daly said Donald Fehr was expected to be in touch with Commissioner Bettman either Wednesday night or Thursday morning to discuss the possibility of another meeting.
“I won’t suggest or say what Don said to us, but I can tell you our proposal for moving the process forward is ‘we understand you’re working on a proposal, make it to us,'” Daly said. “‘Let’s not stand on formalities; if you have a proposal, make it.'”
Daly said the sides are also having some disagreements on the health and safety and various legal issues that were discussed in the late-afternoon session Wednesday. He said these are some of the same issues upon which they hadn’t previously reached agreement.
“I suppose when you get to this point in the discussion on some of those areas that’s to be expected, so we’re kind of refining some of the things we continue to have disagreements on,” Daly said. “But we had no discussion of the major economic issues or system issues, so that continues to be a disappointment from our perspective. Hopefully we can get to that at some point.”
Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas is certainly a proud American and as one is well within his right to follow his heart and his Constitutional right to voice his opinion as we are guaranteed by the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Thomas chose to show his dissatisfaction about the current state of politics by not joining his team when they were honored by President Barack Obama on Monday for winning the Stanley Cup. Thomas was instrumental in the Bruins winning their first Stanley Cup since 1972 and earned the Conn Smythe Trophy MVP honors for his efforts, becoming only the second American ever to win said award.
On his Facebook page Thomas laid out his reason for not attending the event with his team saying:
I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.
Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.
This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic.
Honestly, Thomas’ premise is thoughtful and well presented.
And digging further in Thomas’ isn’t even the first to snub a President’s invitation for his team to come to the White House.
The Christian Science Monitor — http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Sports/2012/0124/Tim-Thomas-Six-other-athletes-who-snubbed-the-White-House/Dan-Hampton — found six athletes who decided not to attend a White House ceremony with their team: the Chicago Bears’ Dan Hampton this past year, the Pittsburgh Steelers’ James Harrison did it twice to President George Bush in 2006 and to President Obama in 2009, Green Bay Packers tight end Mark Chmura did it in 1997, the Boston Red Sox’s Manny Ramierz was absent in 2007, the Chicago Bulls’ Michael Jordan had other things to do in 1991 and the Boston Celtics’ Larry Bird didn’t go in 1984.
Hampton’s was partially motivated by his dislike for the present administration and because the event happened 25 years after the Bears’ were first invited. The Bears initial visit was canceled in 1986 because of the Challenger space shuttle accident happened two days before the visit: “It’s my own personal choice,” the Hall of Fame defensive lineman told The Mully and Hanley radio show. “I don’t choose to go. Secondly, I’m not a fan of the guy in the White House, and third, it was 25 years ago. Let it go. It basically just rolled off our backs, and now, 25 years later to say, ‘Let’s put the band back together.’ No, I’m not in.”
Chmura also didn’t go for political reasons. He didn’t go to protest President Bill Clinton’s involvement with Monica Lewinsky. “I knew it all along,” Chmura told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. “It doesn’t really say much for society and the morals [Clinton] sets forth for our children.”
It was ironic that three years later in 2000, Chmura was charged with third-degree sexual assault and child enticement after he allegedly assaulted his children’s 17-year-old baby-sitter at a post-prom party in April of 2000. He was found not guilty in a later trial.
Harrison, Jordan and Bird didn’t go because, basically they had other things to do.
The problem is Thomas, Hampton, Harrison, Ramierz, Chmura, Jordan and Bird were all wrong for not going to the White House.
Each person put themselves ahead of the team and that goes against everything we’re taught about team sports, the first being there is no ‘I’ in team.
Thomas, could have voiced his opinion, as is his right, and still gone with his team to be honored because of the accomplishment they made together.
Thomas’ not going sends the wrong message to children, a message that says it’s OK to put yourself ahead of the team and it never is when it comes to team sports.