640 Toronto reporting NHLPA proposal

[John Flyers Fan]

A) At least get highest paid guys right. If teams are going use the franschise player exemptions to aviod the cap, they'll logically use it on the highest paid guy. I didn;t bother to check every team, since I dodn;t even know who's under contract anymore, but I just checked a few guys. Luongo for Florida and Sullivan for Nashville are higher than the players you listed for those teams, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were others on other teams.

B) Salaries may drop on average, but this isn't about the foot soldier players. This is about the 'franchise' players. Exempting them from the payroll will basically allow them to hold the team hostage as they have no limit. Unless there is a deadline to declare who is the franschise player (say the start of the season), what is to stop a elite player from holding out for a big deal? And it's not like a long hold out will break a lot of these elite players. Just ask Peca and Khabibulin. The numbers you listed here for teams like Atlanta, Boston, Columbus, and Tampa Bay will go up likely sustancially as Kovalchuk, Thornton, Nash and St. Louis get new deals. My figuring is that an average of $7 million is more likely to be the minimum.

Well I did check every team. Luongo made $1.9 last year to Jokinen's $2.0. Sullivan was the only mistake I made, as his $3 million is more than York's $2.

All numbers courtesy of USA Today.

As guys like Kovalchuk, Nash etc. go up .. the salaries of LeClair, Tkachuk, Allison, Sundin, and Forsberg will be on the decline.

 

[BobMckenzie]

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

I checked this "report" out on Friday. The PA indicated to me that it's totally without foundation, completely bogus. I personally don't believe Monday's negotiating session will see a proposal from the PA. I think it's more for discussion purposes. But that's just speculation. The "report", though, in my mind, has no validity whatsoever.

Bob McKenzie
TSN

 

[Peter Griffin]

Where were you 9 pages ago Bob?!?!

 

[jratelle19]

The proposal, if that's what the proposal does, in fact, look like, will not be accepted by the NHL. However, it is definitely good enough of a proposal for the league to negotiate off of.

However, since the NHL's top priority all this time was to break the union, Bettman will take whatever negative points he can find in the proposal and make it seem like this proposal only hurts the owners more:

"The salary rollback was such a fundamental part of any offer we've made since December, to take it out of the proposal now only sets us back. The high salary floor cannot be afforded by more than half of the teams as it stands right now." BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!

That's what I'm expecting. Nothing that has happened in the past year can make me think otherwise.

Before the pro-owner people start firing bullets at me and labeling me pro-PA, I'll let it be known that I am neither pro-owner nor pro-PA when it comes to the lockout. When I see fans take sides, I can't help but think that no wonder the owners or players are not too worried about the fans not coming back. If most fans were smart, their objective would be to make both sides pay for what they've done to us, once the season get's started, that is. We lost an entire season because of them. That is unforgivable! And for NHL fans to take hardcore stances backing either of these sides really makes me laugh. They don't give a rat's ass about any of us, yet we cling to the owners or the players as if thier main concern would be us. Smarten up and send a message to them all next season, replacements or not!

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

I checked this "report" out on Friday. The PA indicated to me that it's totally without foundation, completely bogus. I personally don't believe Monday's negotiating session will see a proposal from the PA. I think it's more for discussion purposes. But that's just speculation. The "report", though, in my mind, has no validity whatsoever.

Bob McKenzie
TSN

Exactly, Why would the NHLPA who turned down mid 40's a month and a half ago, who have nothing to lose till september, give in that much to the owners. The NHLPA has no pressure to get a deal done at the moment, the owners do though so they can lock down some TV contracts.

 

[C-Saku Koivu MTL]

Here is my personal counter proposal:

**Note I'm pro-owners but I really want hockey back.

-Salary cap of 37.5mil$ + 2mil$(compansation and benefits)-39.5mil$ cap
-Salary floor of 29.5mil$(including the 2 mil$ compasation and benefits)27.5mil$
-''Franchise player'' exemption from salary cap
*Has to have played his entire carrer with same team(like Modano, Sakic, Theodore)
*Only up to 7.5 mil$ is covered from the cap
*Teams have option to the franchise tag(not obligated)
*Franchise player can NOT become a UFA
*Player have right to refuse franchise tag
-Salary rollback of 21% on all current contract
-70/30 revenue sharing on gate receipts and 85/15 on local TV deals
-UFA age at 29 or 8 full years or NHL experience(at least 50 games-injuries)
-Entry level contract limited to 825K/year-4 years deal
*Bonuses would be set by rank selection and would cap at 1.150mil$/year
-Qualifying offers at 75% and 90% for under 900K players
-Basebal-style arbitration

I would expect the PA and maybe the owners to come back on this.

Would do you guys think? Fair

 

[TheBudsForever]

Welcome To The Everybody Loses Scenario:

Latest casualty is the June Draft.

As far as this latest alleged PA proposal, seems to me it should be called the "lets make one player on each team rich deal". In short, I can't see the rest of the NHLPA members being happy with a deal like that. Better to have a higher cap for most players than a lower one with a "franchise player" exemption. Further, there will be a number of NHL team ie Pittsburgh, which won't even need to use the franchise player exception as they will still be under the new cap. Put another way, only about 20 NHL players would be rewarded with big dollar salaries under this alleged proposal.

Replacement players are unlikely to happen and if if does, it will be a disaster. Nobody I know is going to pay big ticket dollars to watch AHL hockey. Look at Toronto, are you going to pay the for the big dollar ticket when you can pay less by going a couple of kilometers down the road to watch the farm team play the same calibre hockey ? Another lost season or one with replacement players will do even more damage to the paying fan base in many hockey markets.

Both sides are still too stupid to realize that the deal is going to come in at a hard cap somewhere in the $40 to $50 million dollar range and just get it done. BOTH SIDES IN THIS MATTER ARE TOTAL IDIOTS THAT DESERVE EACH OTHER.

 

[Mess]

The big spending teams all would have a player making $10 million dollars a season, so that franchise player tag is really only for the big spenders. The only benefit of it is that there would be proposed revenue sharing from a tax on those franchise players, but if you only have 10 players with the tag in the league, and they are all making $10 million, you generate (10x$5M) $50 million in revenue to be split 30 different ways. That's $1.67 million per team, just enough to add a player of the average NHL salary. It's a start but not the answer.

Some of you posters really have to take a step back, take a deep breath and think this over first as to what a CBA means and how some of these issues effect the NHL..

A Franchise Tag is NOT JUST for BIG market spenders .. The Franchise tag benefits all teams .. Sure the Big spenders will use it to get a higher Hard Cap however its even more vital to the small market teams ... If UFA drops down low like the 27 age suggested ... It is a tool that the small market teams can use to avoid losing their Franchise young player .. Columbus, Atlanta, Carolina, Washington, Pittsburgh ..would be slapping this Franchise tag on the Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, Eric Staal, Ovechkin, Malkin, and in the future Crosby and Kessel .. so that their marquee player that sells tickets in their market can't leave for the Bright Lights of the big city when they turn 27.. No matter how small your payroll is you can slap the Franchise tag on any player.

Also I never understand this $$ argument with Franchise players .. If the Avs declare Sakic or the Leafs Sundin or the Red Wings Lidstrom the Franchise player ..what difference does it matter to anyone if he makes $ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 mil a season ??

The player is still on the ice with his teammates as a regular player and what he gets paid by his own team does not effect his on ice performance or make him a better player if he is making 10 mil rather then 5 mil .. HE IS THE SAME PLAYER ... The only team effected is his own team as they are accountable for the number as they pay him and it effects their books and bottom line and profitability .. It has ZERO effect on the ICE or Accounting Books of any other team .. If he makes $5 mil or 10 mil he doesn't count against a hard cap regardless as a franchise player ..and Franchise contracts are not used for Salary comparisons and if the Team didn't have to disclose the figure to anyone, no one would know or care.

Also what people have to understand is that the only part the NHLPA plays in this whole thing is to work together with the NHL (negotiate) collectively on a CBA.

A CBA is just a set of rules that all 30 teams agree to play and operate within .. Its just the framework ... Once the deal is signed the NHL OWNERS are the only ones that have a say as to how they budget and what they spend .. If Teams want to operate and work around a $ 35 mil team they can .. Nothing the NHLPA can do or anybody else for that matter .. The GM's become accountable for the contracts they give out within the $ 31 floor - $ 38.5 ceiling Cap range as suggested by this proposal .. THE NHLPA has ZERO say once the CBA is signed .. So all this $50 mil talk is nonsense, sure the NHLPA can hope that all 30 teams are idiots but its not going to happen, but to just a few who will spend every cent of the 38.5 and slap a player with a Franchise tag .. If an owner has a GM that OVERSPENDS his budget then he can fire him and bring in a better person.

The owners get their Hard Cap, they get their On-Ice-Parity and the franchise tag allows all 30 teams to protect ONE SPECIAL player and insure they keep him even if the UFA drops down real low ...

Lastly .. If both sides are exchanging proposals and the numbers are changing then ...WE ARE NOT AT IMPASSE ...

 

[nyr7andcounting]

Only if you can't understand what you read.

Hint: He's calculating the percentage range the players are asking for. It requires calculating the theoretical minimum and maximum.

Right and his logic is completely flawed.

This isn't a linked cap, therefor not every team is going to have to spend to the cap, or within a couple million of it. The players aren't asking fr 90% of revenues, they are asking that, if a team chooses, it be allowed to spend a little past $38 million. There is a huge difference.

When calculating the % salaries would take up in a de-linked cap, you have to actually project what payrolls would be. It's not as easy as saying the cap is $45 million, teams are going to spend _% of revenues because every team would spend to the cap.

Considering the floor is a little high, if this really is the offer, I would say that 1/3 or more of the league is going to spend $31 million. The middle of the league will be anywhere from $32-$38 million and I would say, consider the 50% tax, no more than 5-8 teams spend to $45 million.

 

[Munchausen]

*Has to have played his entire carrer with same team(like Modano, Sakic, Theodore

This is a good idea. I like it and frankly, it's the only way I could see the league accepting such an examption. Franchise players are seldom traded unless there's some serious trouble in the team but if that clause is put as is by the PA (in the rumored and probably bogus counter-proposal), it is only a way to increase the cap to 45M + benefits. Teams will be able to juggle with their highest paid player of the day and put them under the "franchise" tag just to avoid the cap. This serves no other purposes than increasing the cap number.

If you want a franchise player examption, make it work like one, by having a player that has played all his life in one organization. This will be an incentive for teams to build from within knowing that if they can draft that special player, he won't affect the cap.

It will also make sure teams avoid what is likely to happen under a franchise tag without this condition attached, which is the franchise players asking to be compared only to other franchise players' salaries and inflating the salaries more than any other way. If you put the added condition that the player must have played all his life for that team, at least you will somewhat cut his leverage since he cannot be traded and make that good a salary with other teams because he would fall back under the cap for the team that traded for him (therefore he is better off staying with his original team than opting for free agency, as he will get more with a franchise player tag).

Devotion and loyalty should be rewarded. Players come and go but every team should have at least one player that represents the identity of that team for years to come and a franchise player examption for players that came through the organization (maybe not necessarily drafted, but the player has to play his 1st NHL full season with that team to be eligible, so to include players like Iginla or Luongo) is a way to reward the loyalty of a player (for the likes of Thornton/Samsonov, Theodore/Koivu, Sakic/Hejduk, Nash/Zherdev, Kovalchuk/Heatley, Bouwmeester/Luongo, Datsyuk/Lidstrom, Brodeur/Niedermayer, Spezza/Hossa, Lecavalier/St. Louis, etc).

It would also make sure that every team can build around that player without consideration for his salary other than what he should make according to his impact on the team. I might have even pushed the concept further by lowering the cap number to 30M or just about and allowing for 2 franchise player examptions, but that might be a bit too radical. But this kind of system would make sure the stars are paid like stars while 3-4M 3rd liners are history. This is exactly how it should be IMO.

If the PA proposed the rumored deal but were ready to make the concession mentioned above regarding the franchise player tag, along with also including benefits in their 38.5M number, raising the UFA age to 28yo and including bonuses in the 1.2M rookie contract cap, this IMO would (or at least should) get a deal done with the league.

 

[Rolex]

well we all have to admit expansion caused this mess but how do they get out of it - i don't think even gary has a clue

This is the crux of the problem. Bettman lured potential owners of weak franchises into the league with the promise of "cost certainty". Without that these owners never would have bought into the NHL. Now the league is destroying itself over saving these teams. Capitalism is competitive. If you can't compete, you die. The major spenders-Leafs, Rangers, Avs, Stars, Flyers, etc. realize this and compete. They accept salaries as part of the cost of doing business. They don't complain about rising costs. The fact that other franchises won't compete is their problem. Mismanaged franchises such as the Hawks even turn down ways to make revenue by not telecasting their product and then they complain about high salaries and unprofitability.

 

[Lanny MacDonald*]

Some of you posters really have to take a step back, take a deep breath and think this over first as to what a CBA means and how some of these issues effect the NHL..

I think you should take your own advice and learn to read between the lines.

A Franchise Tag is NOT JUST for BIG market spenders .. The Franchise tag benefits all teams .. Sure the Big spenders will use it to get a higher Hard Cap however its even more vital to the small market teams ... If UFA drops down low like the 27 age suggested ... It is a tool that the small market teams can use to avoid losing their Franchise young player .. Columbus, Atlanta, Carolina, Washington, Pittsburgh ..would be slapping this Franchise tag on the Rick Nash, Ilya Kovalchuk, Eric Staal, Ovechkin, Malkin, and in the future Crosby and Kessel .. so that their marquee player that sells tickets in their market can't leave for the Bright Lights of the big city when they turn 27.. No matter how small your payroll is you can slap the Franchise tag on any player.

And no where in the proposal does it say that any player tagged under the franchise tag is protected from anything and "can't leave". As well, by slapping the franchise player tag on a player also exposes that player to the salary escalation that is certain to take place with that particular moniker. While the PA set will plead ignorance that this little loophole will not be exploited history shows us that any minor flaw in the language of the deal can be exploited by the collusion that the PA is allowed to practice and turn that into a massive escalation tool for that top 8%.

Also I never understand this $$ argument with Franchise players .. If the Avs declare Sakic or the Leafs Sundin or the Red Wings Lidstrom the Franchise player ..what difference does it matter to anyone if he makes $ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 mil a season ??

Because the other teams will have to live up to the fact that they have to pay what ever their "franchise player" demands, or risk being without his services in another ugly holdout. Do I care that Forsberg is making $11 million? Hell yes, especially when I have to try and get a player with better numbers under contract like Iginla. The bar has been set and there are no limits on what a player can demand under the franchise tag. And every team will have to live with what ever the next contract is because "the franchise player does not count against the cap". Its another escalation mechanism plain and simple.

The player is still on the ice with his teammates as a regular player and what he gets paid by his own team does not effect his on ice performance or make him a better player if he is making 10 mil rather then 5 mil .. HE IS THE SAME PLAYER ... The only team effected is his own team as they are accountable for the number as they pay him and it effects their books and bottom line and profitability .. It has ZERO effect on the ICE or Accounting Books of any other team .. If he makes $5 mil or 10 mil he doesn't count against a hard cap regardless as a franchise player ..and Franchise contracts are not used for Salary comparisons and if the Team didn't have to disclose the figure to anyone, no one would know or care.

What is your point here? That the franchise player's salary can't be used for comparison? That's complete bull. No where does it say that the franchise player's salary cannot be used for comparison. NO WHERE. It just opens up another classification of player that agents will be able to exploit and use as a tool for escalation and special status for their players. EVERY team will have a franchise player. Agents will make damn sure of that.

Also what people have to understand is that the only part the NHLPA plays in this whole thing is to work together with the NHL (negotiate) collectively on a CBA.

Well, thanks for clearing that one up. That statement of the obvious has been confusing for everyone in this debate.

A CBA is just a set of rules that all 30 teams agree to play and operate within .. Its just the framework ... Once the deal is signed the NHL OWNERS are the only ones that have a say as to how they budget and what they spend .. If Teams want to operate and work around a $ 35 mil team they can .. Nothing the NHLPA can do or anybody else for that matter .. The GM's become accountable for the contracts they give out within the $ 31 floor - $ 38.5 ceiling Cap range as suggested by this proposal .. THE NHLPA has ZERO say once the CBA is signed .. So all this $50 mil talk is nonsense, sure the NHLPA can hope that all 30 teams are idiots but its not going to happen, but to just a few who will spend every cent of the 38.5 and slap a player with a Franchise tag .. If an owner has a GM that OVERSPENDS his budget then he can fire him and bring in a better person.

Not true. The agents have just as much control as the GMs and it usually boils down to the fans that make the decision for the team. If the fans whine loud enough the player gets his big pay day. If the performance of the team on the ice is not up to fan expectation then the pressure is on the team to get the player in question signed and back in the lineup. To say the team is in control is not true. Not if they want to continue to appeal to the ticket holders. If the ticket holders would side completely with the teams, then yes the team has the power. If the agents and PA did not have the chance to collude, then yes the team has the power to do what you suggest. Unfortunately with the combination of collusion and fan pressure the teams are left holding the bag on too many occassions.

The owners get their Hard Cap, they get their On-Ice-Parity and the franchise tag allows all 30 teams to protect ONE SPECIAL player and insure they keep him even if the UFA drops down real low ...

Again, there is no protection. The only thing the teams are assured of is seeing their player development efforts go for naught as players they invest time and money in leave at age 24.

Lastly .. If both sides are exchanging proposals and the numbers are changing then ...WE ARE NOT AT IMPASSE ...

In your opinion. Based on this "proposal" from the players there is nothing here that would indicate any change in their position IMO. They have their numbers at levels the NHL will not be able to support and have introduced clauses that support greater escalation. This is not an offer in a positiv direction IMO. They widened the gap, not made it closer.

 

[kdb209]

I checked this "report" out on Friday. The PA indicated to me that it's totally without foundation, completely bogus. I personally don't believe Monday's negotiating session will see a proposal from the PA. I think it's more for discussion purposes. But that's just speculation. The "report", though, in my mind, has no validity whatsoever.

Bob McKenzie
TSN

I was pretty much certain it was a fake from the first post - and that was even before the first Eklund connection.

Now, 10 pages and 150 posts later, no one else happened to notice the date at the start of the thread - are we all just being fools.

 

[Canucker]

I tend to agree that this deal won't set owners jumping for joy, however it is what it is, a starting point to negotiate off of. I can see this being the start of something serious. The ceiling isn't all that bad, but the floor will have to definetly drop some. The franchise tag will need some work, I would like to have a franchise player tag but I think they should slap the tag with a few rules that keep heavy spenders in line. I would personally install a luxury tax so that there is a significant drag on salaries beyond $8 million, and I would require the "tagged" player to have been on their team for 3 years before the tag could be placed upon them. The salary rollback will likely end up being 10-15%. All said and done it's not a deal anyone should expect to be snatched up and taken to the bank but it is a good starting point for a return to negotiations. I just hope, like everyone else, that common sense can finally take over and a deal can get worked out.

 

[Kritter471]

Looking at the NFL, which is a league that, to some extent, employs a franchise player in the scenario employed here, the franchise player tag is actually a burden that players hate to get slapped with, because it decreases their market value (even in the hard-capped system of the NFL, you still get outrageous salaries - you just get much smaller salaries for the second and third team guys).

From an NFL standpoint, this is how a franchise player model works. "The term "franchise player" is one used in the context of the NFL. In 1993, the NFL and the NFL Players' Association concluded a collective bargaining agreement that first used that term.

The 1993 CBA creates categories unrestrictive free agency, restrictive free agency for players who have played for a certain number of seasons.

To prevent a situation whereby the very best players could be bought by other teams, The "franchise player" was created. Regardless of player's status as an unrestrictive free agent (which applies after four years of playing) each team can designate a franchise player for each season. The player may then only negotiate with the club for that season and the club must pay him the average of the five largest prior year salaries for players at that position he played the most games, or a salary of 120 percent of his prior year salary, whichever is greater."
http://www.sportslawnews.com/archive/jargon/LJFranchiseplayer.html

Players hate this system and will fight against being named a franchise player because it decreases their market value. If players of this caliber went out on the open market, teams would almost double their salary to have them come to their city (because caps do not act as a magnet, regardless of what Mr. Bettman says, several NFL teams always have room to add high-priced talent). And this system places a cap on each prospective franchise player's salaries.

Now, these franchise players are accounted for under the NFL's hard cap. And these are all one year contracts, which wouldn't work (I believe) under what this proposal's aim is for the franchise player.

I guess my entire spiel here is two fold (beyond reinforcing once again that the idiotic notion of a cap as some sort of magnet is utterly untrue). One - franchise player tags, when regulated even in an inflationary sense, are actually less inflationary than placing those high priced players out on the open market. And two - with restrictions and a tax (i.e., can't up the salary by more than somesuch, must have played in the city X number of years (because Calgary would have a conniption if they couldn't franchise the Dallas-drafted Iginla)) make a franchise player scenario something that the owners could concievebly accept, should it be offered.

 

[mr gib]

This is the crux of the problem. Bettman lured potential owners of weak franchises into the league with the promise of "cost certainty". Without that these owners never would have bought into the NHL. Now the league is destroying itself over saving these teams. Capitalism is competitive. If you can't compete, you die. The major spenders-Leafs, Rangers, Avs, Stars, Flyers, etc. realize this and compete. They accept salaries as part of the cost of doing business. They don't complain about rising costs. The fact that other franchises won't compete is their problem. Mismanaged franchises such as the Hawks even turn down ways to make revenue by not telecasting their product and then they complain about high salaries and unprofitability.

no kidding - well said - however the franchises are there now and the need is to be creative to keep them around - how i guess is what's going on now - punishing the successful one's at the expense of the questionable one's really grates me though - the canuck's fought through it now we're gonna get hosed - denver - dallas - etc

 

[FlyersFan10*]

Because the other teams will have to live up to the fact that they have to pay what ever their "franchise player" demands, or risk being without his services in another ugly holdout. Do I care that Forsberg is making $11 million? Hell yes, especially when I have to try and get a player with better numbers under contract like Iginla. The bar has been set and there are no limits on what a player can demand under the franchise tag. And every team will have to live with what ever the next contract is because "the franchise player does not count against the cap". Its another escalation mechanism plain and simple.

Actually, Forsberg is a better player than Iginla. It's all personal opinion, but I actually like the offer if it is the actual offer that the NHLPA is offering (Bob McKenzie from TSN says otherwise and his word is the gospel in my books). It gives the owners the salary cap they want, it allows for one player to be slotted with a franchise tag and that one player can exceed the cap, and there is a salary floor that teams have to spend (I see no reason why teams like Chicago, Atlanta, etc....can't spend 31 million on a roster. Those are some seriously large markets). With the 60/40 revenue sharing split, this ensures that all teams will have enough money to roster atleast the 31 million floor. Players have been more than fair in the negotiations and have been the ones who have bent over backwards. It's time that a deal get hammered out.

 

[MisterUnspoken]

Of course you would say something like that, you're a Rangers fan.

Of course you would reply this way, because its a "hip" thing to do. Bash the big market teams as if they are the enemy. And of all people this is coming from a Bruins fan?? I don't think you're a small market team last time I checked. As far as I recall your owner is just cheap.

 

[Scoogs]

Of course you would reply this way, because its a "hip" thing to do. Bash the big market teams as if they are the enemy. And of all people this is coming from a Bruins fan?? I don't think you're a small market team last time I checked. As far as I recall your owner is just cheap.

Burn

 

[PecaFan]

there's absolutely nothing misleading about it. the first sentence is "Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04".

That'd be great, if it was 2003-04. But it's not. Those numbers are old, many of them are incorrect. Thus, deceiving, especially when used to attempt to show that the numbers aren't that high.

There are newer numbers, from the NHLPA's offer, a far more accurate source than USA Today, and up to date.

The whole post was irrelevant anyways, as it doesn't matter how many teams have franchise guys who are right at the top of the range. Nobody was claiming every single team would be at $50 million or so, just some.

 

[Scoogs]

If a deal was reached tomorrow.. Does anyone know the number of contracts that are still in tact?

Out of the full 700+ members of the PA that is...

 

[Matzel]

Franchise player salaries for each team if this was 2003-04

Phoenix - Savage - $3.25

Dancin' Gabe rules!

 

[Icey]

If a deal was reached tomorrow.. Does anyone know the number of contracts that are still in tact?

Out of the full 700+ members of the PA that is...

Today -- the same number that were signed on September 15th.

July 1st that number falls to about 250.

 

[Frenzy31]

Do not want comment on the rest of this highly hypothetical proposal, but I like this part. Also, I think the teams should share 30% of their local TV/radio revenue with the rest of the league.

Why, it would lower the value of more then a few franchises. Leave the revenue sharing to the ticket sales.

 

[Scoogs]

Today -- the same number that were signed on September 15th.

July 1st that number falls to about 250.

Well.. You know what I meant.. Since there is no way we will be seeing NHL hockey before July 1st.

I guess I need to be even MORE specific in my posts.

Now you can see why if this proposal is true, there is no rollback. There really isnt a point.