640 Toronto reporting NHLPA proposal

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

Not mandatory, but it is a realistic hypothetical salary for many clubs, IMO.

 

[Sixty Six]

just a thought and i'm not sure of any us really know, but let's just say there is a franchise player that doesn't count against the cap, how would one go against trading their franchise player... would they get to redesignate one for the rest of the year, would the team aquiring him have his money go against their cap, even if the money is more than what their current franchise player is making?

 

[19nazzy]

The definition of a Franchise Player would be necessary too. Something to prevent teams from throwing it on their highest paid player each season would be required.

I believe when you would sign someone to a contract, they would be given the designation as a franchise player for the term of that contract, and the team would have that player as a franchise player for the duration of the contract

 

[Chaos]

- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
- Salary floor of $31 million
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
- No salary rollback
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
- Qualifying offers @ 75%
- Baseball-style arbitration

IMO the NHL has to negotiate off of this, assuming the PA does in fact make this proposal. Come back with something like this:

- Cap at $37.5 mil
- Floor at $28 mil
- Franchise player exception with a salary limit on this player(say $7 mil), and heavy restrictions on who you can place it on
- No rollback/5-10% rollback
- 60/40 revenue sharing
- UFA at 28, or 7 years in the NHL
- Entry-level contracts limited to 900K plus limited bonuses(base and bonuses based on draft position, like the NFL, NBA, and MLB)
- 75% Qualifying offers
- Baseball-style arbitration

 

[Flukeshot]

I guess an easy solution to the Franchise player issue could be that only a certain amount of the player's salary can be held off the cap. You can have your $10m contracts all you like but only $6-7m will not be counted to the cap total.

I don't think the Cap of $38.5m should be lowered, that hurts the big spenders too much. The small markets should get a lower floor and the big boys should get their higher cap. The disparity with this proposal is only $7.5m, which is good in one way, but the floor is too high for some teams. As mentioned by other posters, smack it down a little to $28m + benefits etc.

***Slightly unrelated question, does anyone know the avg payroll for an AHL team this year?

 

[19nazzy]

MLB Arbitration
Arbitration 101

It's time for another bout of the arbitration blues, but what does this system really mean? In simple terms, arbitration establishes a system in which salaries from top to bottom are reviewed and adjusted to mirror those of equal players.

Baseball salaries more clearly reflect a player's standing among other players because after three years baseball does a direct statistical comparison with one's peers in front of a non-partial arbitrator. The system itself forces owners to come to the table with realistic one-year offers that reflect a player's fair market value.

After drafting a player from either high school or college, a baseball team gets to decide if or when a player is ready for the majors. The team holds a player's rights for a whopping six years in the minor leagues.

Now we all have seen the cases of minor league stars falling on their faces in the big leagues. Well, ownership is covered there as well. A player is not eligible for arbitration for three years, and that turns into four years if the team strategically calls a player up in June rather than having him break spring training with the club.

A club can pay that player anything it wants (above the minimum salary) for those three or four years. Then, if the club decides it doesn't want to pay the jump in salary that arbitration might demand, it can non-tender a contract to that player and look elsewhere. The worst-case scenario for a club is to take a player to arbitration and be on the hook for only one year at market value.

 

[ChemiseBleuHonnete]

looks like bs to me.

 

[mr gib]

where are the crappy teams gonna get 31 mil?

of course - missed that - thanks - i guess thats where the negotiation will be very - heated -

 

[Winger98]

- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
- Salary floor of $31 million
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
- No salary rollback
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
- Qualifying offers @ 75%
- Baseball-style arbitration

"player compensation and benefits" -- what is that?

The salary floor is right around the level the NHL had thrown around in earlier proposals, so I don't see a reason to complain about it much. Like many, I don't see how some teams are helped by it, but at least the players offer a definitive way that could help fund it with the 60/40 idea. The owners have always balked at offering significant details of a revenue sharing scheme.

I don't really care for the franchise tag, simply because it only protects one player. I would still love for some form of exemption for players who have been on a team for a certain number of years so teams are encouraged and given the financial wiggle room to keep their team together.

The early UFA and dropping the rollback is expected.

The entry level contracts keeping the loophole bonus would have to go and I think the owners would bargain that away.

Qualifying offer and the arbitration changes are pretty much exactly what a lot of us have wanted.

-----------------------------------

If this is the real offer, I think that, like many here, the owners would have to come back and negotiate with a lot of terms of this agreement used as a base. Personally, I think the UFA age, qualifying offers and arbitration system would be untouched.

Instead, the owners would bargain for a lower salary floor, a higher salary ceiling, an alteration of the "franchise tag," such as a modified Larry Bird rule instead, and will try to push revenue sharing under the rug again.

My main objections are that it would still likely hinder a team's ability to build a team from the ground up and keep it together, and that Canadian teams would still be a vastly unlevel playing field because of the differences in currency value. I still think there needs to be some form of special program to help the Canadian franchises.

 

[MeatTornado]

No rollback? a cap that could end up being around 50 miliion? A salary floor? this is one of their worst proposals yet. Hopefully it will at least be a point to begin negotiations. I am sick of each side simply rejecting these proposals. So far I have seen little evidence of 'negotiation'.

 

[andora]

So in reality the deal is a salary cap of $50.5 million, with no salary adjustment, a massive drop in free agency age and no change to rookie salaries. To which I counter with three proposals.

1) a salary cap of $38.5 million, a 24% roll back, a rookie cap of $900K with amaximum 30% bonus structure, free agency at 29 and agreeing to the last two points.

2) 55% of revenues offer.

3) The NHL opens the doors and welcomes back all players who wish to play under the NHL's 55% offer.

Frankly I'd tell the played to piss up a rope and open the doors to all comers.

beautiful... it seems so simple...

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

beautiful... it seems so simple...

It's time for the players to realize it is just that simple. They have set the president themselves by going and playing in Europe for 1/4 to 1/10th of what they made in the NHL. They have bar to which the NHL can negotiate down to. What other options do the players have? Go and play in the European leagies full time? Go play in the WHA? Form their own league and finance it themselves? The NHL owners have the markets cornered that can support the player's demands. Is Regina, Saskatoon and Hamilton going to allow for revenues that will support a $1.3 million average salary? Not a chance in hell. The NHL owners have the players by the balls and do what they want. If they choose to keep the NHLPA out and go with replacement players the hit will be short term as players naturally are replaced with new talent. Those players staying on the other side will just fade away as a foot note to the game.

As harsh as it sounds, that is the reality IMO. The players need the NHL a helluva lot more than the NHL needs them. The players proved they are not leaps and bounds better than players in other leagues, like they would hope you would believe. ECHL players have made life difficult for "NHL stars", so the disparity is not as bad as some here would think. Yes, the top 50 players in the world are special, but after that the massive majority are completely replaceable. The rank of file of the NHLPA better wisen up and realize this. Their livelihoods and future security for their families are on the line so the top 8% of the membership can continue to make obscene amounts of money.

 

[ti-vite]

Because of lock out, revenu goes down to 1.5B$ (?)

31 M$ X 30 teams = 930M$
38 + franchise (7M$?) = 45M$ X 30 teams = 1.35B$

So, BEFORE BONUSES, the players want 62% to 90% of league revenue based on 1.5B$, when you have Burke saying revenue may go south of a billion on the short term, Bob Goodemnow can shove this.

 

[Zednik]

It makes no sense to me... a $ 38.5 M + Franchise deductible of $7 M + $2 M for benefits = a cap of 47.5 M$ cap...

And a floor at $ 31 M is a big joke...

Bring the replacement players !

 

[X8oD]

It makes no sense to me... a $ 38.5 M + Franchise deductible of $7 M + $2 M for benefits = a cap of 47.5 M$ cap...

And a floor at $ 31 M is a big joke...

Bring the replacement players !

am i missing something, or does anything say a franchise player is a) required to make 7 million, and b) required to be franchised.

if you dont want to franchise the guy, do you not have to? Every NFL team has a franchise Tag, not every NFL team uses it. Every NBA team has a Mid-Level Exception, not every NBA team uses their MLE.

some teams just DONT have a franchise player. Some team will NOT elect to use it. Im as pro-owner as it gets, but if this proposal is true, and there is no required Franchise tag, but an optional franchise time, why not?

 

[RLC]

No way this flyes

The NHL should listen and take a week to answer with a NEW lower proposal then their last one as time is running and we are all headed for replacement players.
The NHL offers are a take it or leave it. The next offer will be less then this one, type offers.

The NHLPA sill does not understand this ?

 

[salzy]

looks like bs to me.

Me too, unless Alan Eagleson is back representing the PA.

 

[Icey]

A poster at another forum I frequent heard this (he said he would fix any errors in his post if need be)...

- Salary cap of $38.5 million, + $2 million for player compensation & benefits
- Salary floor of $31 million
- "Franchise player" exemption from salary cap
- No salary rollback
- 60/40 revenue sharing on gate receipts
- Unrestricted free agency at age 27, or 6 years in the NHL
- Entry-level contracts limited to $1.2 million plus bonuses
- Qualifying offers @ 75%

- Baseball-style arbitration

Not quite the same rumor I heard.

--- Franchise player exemption does not count against the cap, but is taxed at 50%, so that 10M franchise player, although they don't count against your cap, they are taxed at $5M. Chris Pronger now costs the Blues $15M.

---Entry level contract are capoed at $1.2M INCLUDING all bonuses.

-- Salary cap of $38M included the $2.2M in player compensation and benefits.

It seems the basis of the deal are remaining the same, but the fine details seem to be getting twisted. Time will tell who is twisting them and what the real deal is.

 

[Zednik]

am i missing something, or does anything say a franchise player is a) required to make 7 million, and b) required to be franchised.

if you dont want to franchise the guy, do you not have to? Every NFL team has a franchise Tag, not every NFL team uses it. Every NBA team has a Mid-Level Exception, not every NBA team uses their MLE.

some teams just DONT have a franchise player. Some team will NOT elect to use it. Im as pro-owner as it gets, but if this proposal is true, and there is no required Franchise tag, but an optional franchise time, why not?

What's your point? It's like saying a $40 M doesn't mean all teams will have $40 M payroll. I know that.

This will just create a bigger gap between rich teams and small markets.

 

[Icey]

What's your point? It's like saying a $40 M doesn't mean all teams will have $40 M payroll. I know that.

This will just create a bigger gap between rich teams and small markets.

So you think all 29 teams should be forced to have the same payroll of the Nashville Predators? There will always be a gap no matter what you do. And as much as Toroto should be forced to lower their payroll, Nashville should be forced to raise theirs.

 

[Zednik]

So you think all 29 teams should be forced to have the same payroll of the Nashville Predators? There will always be a gap no matter what you do. And as much as Toroto should be forced to lower their payroll, Nashville should be forced to raise theirs.

No but a high cap will raise ALL salaries, including Predators salaries...

 

[Eric]

am i missing something, or does anything say a franchise player is a) required to make 7 million, and b) required to be franchised.

if you dont want to franchise the guy, do you not have to? Every NFL team has a franchise Tag, not every NFL team uses it. Every NBA team has a Mid-Level Exception, not every NBA team uses their MLE.

some teams just DONT have a franchise player. Some team will NOT elect to use it. Im as pro-owner as it gets, but if this proposal is true, and there is no required Franchise tag, but an optional franchise time, why not?

Uh, that's not what the franchise tag is at all. In the NFL, the franchise tag just allows a team to sign a player to a one-year deal, with the player getting the average salary of the top 5 players at that position. The contract isn't exempt from the team's salary cap.

As for this proposal, you're right, a team doesn't have to franchise a player, and not every 'franchise player' makes $7-mil. The problem right now is teams are overspending. Allowing a team like the Rangers to exempt Jagr's $11-mil contract would ultimately push NYR's cap to $49.5mil, where team's who do not have the spending power would have a significantly lower cap. This would defeat the purpose of having a salary cap...

 

[CGG]

What's your point? It's like saying a $40 M doesn't mean all teams will have $40 M payroll. I know that.

This will just create a bigger gap between rich teams and small markets.

Unlike now where Pittsburgh spends $20 million and Detroit $70 million. If you want to close the gap you need a whole bunch of revenue sharing, and owners certainly wouldn't want to do that. I bet this offer would be much better received than a min of $37 million and a max of $37.1 million.

 

[Zednik]

Unlike now where Pittsburgh spends $20 million and Detroit $70 million. If you want to close the gap you need a whole bunch of revenue sharing, and owners certainly wouldn't want to do that. I bet this offer would be much better received than a min of $37 million and a max of $37.1 million.

A low cap and a decent floor would close the gap (20-40 seems reasonable to me). They have to avoid this ''franchise'' thing, it's just a way for rich teams to escape the cap.

 

[First Line]

---Entry level contract are capoed at $1.2M INCLUDING all bonuses.

-- Salary cap of $38M included the $2.2M in player compensation and benefits.

If the owners say no to a 38m cap the PA just won the PR battle. Big time!