A meaningful offer forthcoming from the PA... A lull before the storm?

[me2]

I honestly see a very creative and thoughtful proposal coming from the PA. I would like to be optimistic and think that after three days of internal meetings, the union will decide to create a very different offer to impress the NHL and more importantly the media and NLRB. I predict that the PA will come out offering either a cap very close to 37.5 with extensive revenue sharing or a cap around 45 with limited revenue sharing. I think these aspects along with some other new creative ideas can spark a deal in the near future because the sides will become that much closer. This proposal is very big.

If the NHLPA do then they'll look like fools for wasting an entire season.

If the NHLPA don't then they'll look like fools for wasting more time.

So which will it be...

 

[nyrmessier011]

If the NHLPA do then they'll look like fools for wasting an entire season.

If the NHLPA don't then they'll look like fools for wasting more time.

So which will it be...

No worse then the NHL will look when they put "the one thing the players will never accept" back on the table April 8.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

If the NHLPA do then they'll look like fools for wasting an entire season.

If the NHLPA don't then they'll look like fools for wasting more time.

So which will it be...

It takes 2 sides to meet in the middle and it takes 2 sides to come up with a good deal. Neither side has made a proposal that is close to being accepted by the other side.

 

[me2]

No worse then the NHL will look when they put "the one thing the players will never accept" back on the table April 8.

NHLPA comes off a lot worse. They could have put forward the deal with a $37.5m cap, that was just suggested, way back in August or September and played a normal season. If they wasted an entire seasons worth of pay for that then they are run by idiots.

 

[nyrmessier011]

NHLPA comes off a lot worse. They could have put forward the deal with a $37.5m cap, that was just suggested, way back in August or September and played a normal season. If they wasted an entire seasons worth of pay for that then they are run by idiots.

Well that can be said about 1995 when the owners wasted an entire half season and lost a half seasons pay for nothing...one side always comes out the winner...the NHL is the winner this time, althoguh they can't accept that yet.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

NHLPA comes off a lot worse. They could have put forward the deal with a $37.5m cap, that was just suggested, way back in August or September and played a normal season. If they wasted an entire seasons worth of pay for that then they are run by idiots.

The cap number is not the only thing that matters. If the players can convince the owners to share revenues at a meaningful rate than a $37.5 cap can have the same affect as a $42 or $45 cap...the only difference being big market owners aren't taking home huge amounts of money every year. Not to mention arbitration and things like that were far from settled. Even if the PA offers a $38 million cap, it doesn't mean they could have gotten that deal even in February

 

[me2]

Well that can be said about 1995 when the owners wasted an entire half season and lost a half seasons pay for nothing...one side always comes out the winner...the NHL is the winner this time, althoguh they can't accept that yet.

Absolutely. At least the NHL made a decision, lose the CBA but save 1/2 a season is better than lose and save none of the season. Mind you a bunch of the idiots running some of the teams thought they would win under that CBA, a guess they have learned.

 

[me2]

The cap number is not the only thing that matters. If the players can convince the owners to share revenues at a meaningful rate than a $37.5 cap can have the same affect as a $42 or $45 cap...the only difference being big market owners aren't taking home huge amounts of money every year. Not to mention arbitration and things like that were far from settled. Even if the PA offers a $38 million cap, it doesn't mean they could have gotten that deal even in February

53-55% of $2.1B = $37.1m-$38.5m per team, guaranteed. They got offered that, they said no.

Now they are coming back with $37.5m as the cap? Which could be much lower in actual earning as not all teams will spend to max. Are they trying to negotiate worse offers?

 

[nyrmessier011]

53-55% of $2.1B = $37.1m-$38.5m per team, guaranteed. They got offered that, they said no.

Now they are coming back with $37.5m as the cap? Which could be much lower in actual earning as not all teams will spend to max. Are they trying to negotiate worse offers?

Not a chance the league brings in $2.1B in either of the next at least three seasons. That's why they would take $38 instead of 54%.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Not a chance the league brings in $2.1B in either of the next at least three seasons. That's why they would take $38 instead of 54%.

Exactly.... Even if they had managed to get half a season done, league revenue would have dipped at least to 1.5 billion next year, if not lower.. Long term though, linkage would have likely been a boon for the players compaired to a hard cap around 37-38 million...


I expect the offer to be creative from the PA.....

But creative can also mean full of loophole's and clause 7's that sink deals...



A rolling cap is a possiblity...

Or, what I think the NHLPA should have done from the start...

Something like a Hard Cap at 50 million...

2.75 dollar tax per dollar down to 45

2.50 Tax down to 42.5

2 dollar tax down to 40

1.25 tax down to 39

.50 cent tax to 38 million



Floor at 22 million...

All teams below each level of tax collect evenly from the tax bracket they are below.

So if say Colorado and Detroit spend in the 2.75 tax bracket, all other teams split what they(Colorado,Detroit) pay in even...then say Toronto is in the 2.50 tax bracket...they get an even split of the Colorado-Detroit tax, but pay their tax to all teams in the lower tax brackets an even split..Then say the Rangers are in the 2 dollar tax range.. they get revenue from Colorado, Detroit, and Toronto..but pay their tax to all teams below them in the bracket program...and so on down the line....Teams that stay below 38 million don't pay in any tax's, but get a good chunk of revenue through the program..

Owners get a fail safe on the top, as you for sure put Colorado, Detroit, NYR, Toronto and company back down to earth for contracts ..

Players could claim a 'victory' in that they got 50 million for the hard cap vs 42.5...

Both sides allow for a stellar team and a rich owner to spend...spend..spend...but thats ok, as they will lose a ton of cash, and give alot back to the smaller markets...which would prohibit it from happening alot, if at all..

 

[me2]

Not a chance the league brings in $2.1B in either of the next at least three seasons. That's why they would take $38 instead of 54%.

Not now but before the the lockout they could have gotten that deal done.

 

[txomisc]

Rip him all you want, but he's one player that is pissed off that they aren't playing hockey. He is one player that wants to be playing and will do anything to get back to playing, including take a HUGE pay cut. You know that "love for the game" that you guys all talk about.

I gotta agree. I am as pro-owner as anyone, but Modano has gotten an unfair shake in all of this. The whole dog thing was taken totally the wrong way and he has ended up a whipping boy because of it. Modano is genuinely a good guy and deserves better than being lumped in with McCabe.

 

[Taranis_24]

Well that can be said about 1995 when the owners wasted an entire half season and lost a half seasons pay for nothing...one side always comes out the winner...the NHL is the winner this time, althoguh they can't accept that yet.

These are not those same owners. There is something like 20 new owners in the league since that last work stoppage. Don't think you can compare this group to those owners 10 years ago. Though most of pro-pa arguments tend to be that way.

 

[sveiglar]

When he was interviewed during one of the intermissions by the play by play announcer for the Stars games at the end Modano said to him "see you in September". Make whatever you want out of that, but I took that to mean "I'm crossing the line and I'll be playing hockey in September", and it will only take one or two of Modano statue and the floodgates will open.

It's just as likely that he meant, "You won't see anything meaningful happen until September, so see you then when we'll still be in the same situation".

 

[dolfanar]

These are not those same owners. There is something like 20 new owners in the league since that last work stoppage. Don't think you can compare this group to those owners 10 years ago. Though most of pro-pa arguments tend to be that way.

It isn't the same group of players largely either... It really doesn't matter as it all comes down to perception.

The perception will always be that the owners bungled the 94-95 lockout, and basically set themselves up for this monumental war with the PA. In large part I think that is pretty accurate, as desicions just before, during and after the lockout, by the owners themselves, pretty much put them in the position they are in today. The PA pretty much owned the owners from 94-95 to 2003-2004.

The flip side however will be awfully painful for the players, as any way they play it, they lose BIG this time around. It's pretty much an 800 pund market correction that's landing on their shoulders, and what's worse is that any way they play it, they'll also probably lose the public opinion war as well. So far it looks like the owners have outmaneuvered the PA at every turn this time, imo.

 

[nyr7andcounting]

53-55% of $2.1B = $37.1m-$38.5m per team, guaranteed. They got offered that, they said no.

Now they are coming back with $37.5m as the cap? Which could be much lower in actual earning as not all teams will spend to max. Are they trying to negotiate worse offers?

Wow, you know that revenues will be $2.1 billion next year? Link? And what makes you think that the group of idiots running the NHL will EVER get revenues back to that point?

There is no way they would have taken linkage. A deal can be made by the PA with a $37.5 million cap that is better than the one they were offered, even with the $42.5 million cap. It doesn't seem like trying are negotiating for worse offers at all.

 

[Frenzy31]

Exactly.... Even if they had managed to get half a season done, league revenue would have dipped at least to 1.5 billion next year, if not lower.. Long term though, linkage would have likely been a boon for the players compaired to a hard cap around 37-38 million...


I expect the offer to be creative from the PA.....

But creative can also mean full of loophole's and clause 7's that sink deals...



A rolling cap is a possiblity...

Or, what I think the NHLPA should have done from the start...

Something like a Hard Cap at 50 million...

2.75 dollar tax per dollar down to 45

2.50 Tax down to 42.5

2 dollar tax down to 40

1.25 tax down to 39

.50 cent tax to 38 million



Floor at 22 million...

All teams below each level of tax collect evenly from the tax bracket they are below.

So if say Colorado and Detroit spend in the 2.75 tax bracket, all other teams split what they(Colorado,Detroit) pay in even...then say Toronto is in the 2.50 tax bracket...they get an even split of the Colorado-Detroit tax, but pay their tax to all teams in the lower tax brackets an even split..Then say the Rangers are in the 2 dollar tax range.. they get revenue from Colorado, Detroit, and Toronto..but pay their tax to all teams below them in the bracket program...and so on down the line....Teams that stay below 38 million don't pay in any tax's, but get a good chunk of revenue through the program..

Owners get a fail safe on the top, as you for sure put Colorado, Detroit, NYR, Toronto and company back down to earth for contracts ..

Players could claim a 'victory' in that they got 50 million for the hard cap vs 42.5...

Both sides allow for a stellar team and a rich owner to spend...spend..spend...but thats ok, as they will lose a ton of cash, and give alot back to the smaller markets...which would prohibit it from happening alot, if at all..

Not a bad idea. What about UFA status - age 29 or 10 years? Arbitration - both sides can take with winner take all.

What about something like this? Set a cap at 37.5 million, but you get a franchise player contract which doesn't count against the cap. Once the contract has been given the "tag" you do not get another one until it has expired.

 

[habfan4]

It isn't the same group of players largely either... It really doesn't matter as it all comes down to perception.

The perception will always be that the owners bungled the 94-95 lockout, and basically set themselves up for this monumental war with the PA. In large part I think that is pretty accurate, as desicions just before, during and after the lockout, by the owners themselves, pretty much put them in the position they are in today. The PA pretty much owned the owners from 94-95 to 2003-2004.

The flip side however will be awfully painful for the players, as any way they play it, they lose BIG this time around. It's pretty much an 800 pund market correction that's landing on their shoulders, and what's worse is that any way they play it, they'll also probably lose the public opinion war as well. So far it looks like the owners have outmaneuvered the PA at every turn this time, imo.

That's pretty much the way I see it as well, the players are going to lose big (whether they deserve to or not is a moot point).

With all the deadlines/NHL pressure points that have passed, the PA must know (or ought to know) that the NHL is serious about "correcting the market". From the moment the PA agreed to cost certainty in principle, they should have been negotiating non-stop on a reasonable cap dollar figure and for other damage control mechanisms in the CBA (qualifying offers, free agency etc..). I fail to see the rationale in the PA's decision to continue to play the waiting game.

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

Well that can be said about 1995 when the owners wasted an entire half season and lost a half seasons pay for nothing...one side always comes out the winner...the NHL is the winner this time, althoguh they can't accept that yet.

How exactly is the NHL a winner already? If the NHL uses replacements which it looks like they are heading gown that road, there is a very good chance that the whole thing blows up in their face and the NHLPA gets a better deal than the NHL originally was offering. You all make the PA out to be a bunch of idiots but it's still all high priced lawyers who know what they're doing. This is why I can't understand why the NHL just wouldn't continue the lockout. They have a way better chance of getting what they want in my opinion if they continued the lockout rather than use replacements which have a great chance of no one giving a crap about or going to see.

 

[FLYLine27*]

The chances it will be a meaningful offer are about the same chances of the NHL ever giving a meaningful proposal. Close to 0%.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

Not a bad idea. What about UFA status - age 29 or 10 years? Arbitration - both sides can take with winner take all.

What about something like this? Set a cap at 37.5 million, but you get a franchise player contract which doesn't count against the cap. Once the contract has been given the "tag" you do not get another one until it has expired.

I don't really like the whole "franchise player" thing... It sets a player apart, breaking up the whole team concept... might as well just make the cap higher...

The NHL would be best to simply try and get it so that a team can take a player to arbitration only once in his carrier... they are pushing it asking to be able to do it whenever they want...

Regarding arbitration.. I would also like to see the losing side be able to set the length of the contract... either 1, 2, or 3 seasons...

I would not want UFA age lowered if I were an older member in the PA(thus why it has not been in their offers) as it cuts down on big paydays for the "limited" number of players out there July 1st...

 

[Lil' Jimmy Norton*]

Actually the answer to that would be no. Mike has a few little businesses he runs on the side....part owner of the Texas Tornado for one. He sold his house and made a profit in the neighborhood of $20M according to D Magazine, so I think Mike still made more money this year than you have probably made in your entire life.

He's so dumb he's laughing all the way to the bank.

Well well well... sounds like you have a good grip on Mike's Synergy make sure you jostle the stones while your down there....er in Dallas I mean. If I was Mike I would be afraid of you and would resort to a restraining order.

 

[Morbo]

He sold his house and made a profit in the neighborhood of $20M according to D Magazine

A PROFIT of 20 million...on a house??

Where did he live, Buckingham Palace?

 

[Morbo]

I gotta agree. I am as pro-owner as anyone, but Modano has gotten an unfair shake in all of this. The whole dog thing was taken totally the wrong way and he has ended up a whipping boy because of it. Modano is genuinely a good guy and deserves better than being lumped in with McCabe.

Lumped in with McCabe? What did he say that was worse than the dog remark?

 

[me2]

Wow, you know that revenues will be $2.1 billion next year? Link? And what makes you think that the group of idiots running the NHL will EVER get revenues back to that point?

There is no way they would have taken linkage. A deal can be made by the PA with a $37.5 million cap that is better than the one they were offered, even with the $42.5 million cap. It doesn't seem like trying are negotiating for worse offers at all.

The revenues were $2.1B last year. Can you give me a reason to think it wouldn't have been around that number this year if there was no lockout?

If the NHLPA had made its an offer similar to the one being suggest back in August/September, a deal gets done, and yes you could be fairly certain revenue would be $2.1B or there abouts. Screwing around and wasting a season, just to make the same offer they could have had 6 months ago is stupid, and to top it off its led to degredation of revenues in their own industry.

"There's nothing more disastrous for the future of a labor organization and its members than enduring a long stoppage, then folding," Miller said. "You can take almost anything except that because you lose on both fronts."